Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Informal Packet 05-26-2009
S' - • AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2009 1:30 P.M. INFORMAL MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER -COMMISSIONER LEWIS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2. DISCUSSION ON MATCHING FUNDS FOR IN THE IMAGE OF CHRIST, INC. -PAYE OUTLAW 3. DISCUSSION ON SLC MINI-GRANT FUNDING - JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION -PAYE OUTLAW 4. DISCUSSION ON CITY OF FORT PIERCES RESOLUTION NO. 09-23 INITIATING DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE PERTAINING TO PROPERTIES NORTH AND WEST OF MIDWAY ROAD. -DAN MCINYTRE 5. DISCUSSION ON REVISED JOINT PLANNING AND INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT -CITY OF FORT PIERCE -DAN MCINTYRE 6. FORT PIERCE FARMS - FLIP GATES 7. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SMART GROWTH AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE -KARA WOOD/RAMON TRIAS 8. WESTERN LANDS UPDATE -MARK SAT'TERLEE/KARA WOOD 9. UPDATE ON ECONOMIC STIMULUS -PAYE OUTLAW AND STAFF 10. DISCUSSION OF INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE REALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000.00 FOR THE RENOVATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICE. 11. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED APPRENTICESHIP AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR LANGUAGE -LEE ANN LOWERY/DAN MCINTYRE 12. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT PLEASE NOTE: A FOLLOW UP INFORMAL MEETING HAS BEEN SET FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 4T" AT 9:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM #3 ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982 NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. Closing the Gap Funds In The Image of Christ, Inc. In the Image of Christ, Inc. (ITIC) has been awarded $120,000.00 for HIV/AIDS prevention services. This grant is contingent on matching dollazs of $40,000.00. These matching dollars must be in TTIC's bank account by June 1 and designated for the Closing the Gap program, or the grant will be forfeited. With Closing the Gap funding, ITIC will be able to accomplish the following: 1. HIY/AIDS 4uarterly Newsletter: ITIC will disseminate this quarterly newsletter in the 10 zip codes within SLC with the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS to raise awareness. Each quarter 5,000 newsletters will be produced and disseminated throughout SLC (a strategy plan for distribution has already been developed). The newsletter will include current epidemiological and surveillance data on the impact of HIV among blacks in SLC, and will also include stories of individuals living with the HIV infection, Faith Talk participants, prevention skills, and other pertinent information about HIV infection at the local and national level. To reduce stigma associated with HIV infection, the newsletter will also include information on community resources which will benefit the low income tazget population. 2. TTalnlnp Faith Community LaV Ministers: ITIC has already trained 22 pastors and 481ay people in approaches to discussing HIV among their congregations and to promote awareness in their communities about HIV transmission, HIV counseling/testing, and the benefits of consistent medical caze and adherence to drug regimens. Closing the Gap funds will enable ITIC to train an additiona160 members of the faith community (pastors and/or lay persons). 3. HIY Community Awareness Public Events: to promote awareness of HIV in the black community ITIC will participate in national HIV observance days and promote 4 nationall observed HIV awareness campaigns and provide HIV awazeness at a local community event. These events will reach hundreds of persons in the community with HIV prevention messages. 4. "SISTA" CDCDemonstratron Project: With 1 in 35 black women infected with HIV in SLC, the SISTA project develops self esteem among black women and is aimed at reducing HIV sexual risk behaviors by increasing knowledge of HIV transmission and training women in condom negotiation skills. ITIC will complete eight cycles of SISTA training each yeaz. Each cycle includes five sessions to be completed over a six week period with a group of 8-12 black women. In this way, ITIC will specifically tazget 64 black women each yeaz. ITEM N0.2 5. "VOICES" CDC Intervention i~ideo Sessions: this is a scientific-based effective behavioral intervention for HIV prevention in which trained health educators convene groups of 4-8 clients from clinics and community based organizations. These clients view the VOICES video which includes information on HIV risk behavior and condom use. A health educator facilitates group discussions after each viewing. ITIC will conduct 2 VOICES video sessions per week and engage a minimum of 4 unduplicated participants per session to tazget a minimum of 144 participants per yeaz. Statement of Need: • SLC has highest rate in Florida among its black community with 1:35 infected with HIV • Blacks comprise 15%of SLC's population but accounts for 77% of HIV cases and 92% of AIDS cases • 100% of the county's pediatric AIDS cases are among Blacks • Between 2007 and 2008 there was a 50% increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases among Black males In The Image of Christ, Inc. is a nonprofit, community-based organization formed in 2001 in response to the HN/AIDS epidemic in St. Lucie County (SLC}. ITIC's vision is to provide support to SLC residents affected by HIV/AIDS. The mission of the organization is to afford charitable services to low income residents, and to play a leading role in assisting those infected with HIV/AIDS; with special emphasis on preventing and decreasing HIV infection rates and supporting individuals, children and families affected by AIDS. In fulfilling this mission, ITIC provides charitable health services, including HIV care and prevention education; HIV rapid testing; a registered Food Pantry, utility and financial assistance in SLC's low-income black community. , - i ~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY GRANTS /DISASTER RECOVERY ~ DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: William Hoeffner, Grants and Disaster Recovery Director,~~/ SUBJECT: Cultural Affairs Mini-Grant Program DATE: May 21, 2009 The County Cultural Affairs Department provides grants to cultural organizations through its mini-grant program. Although historically these grants provided grants of $2,000 to qualifying organizations, the grants have been limited to $1,000 per request for the last two years. 'The requirements of the mini-grant program (Attachment 1) and a list of current yeaz recipients (Attachment 2) are attached. Throughout the last several yeazs, larger grants have been approved by the Boazd of County Commissioners and were given to the Jazz and Blues Society ($15,000), the St. Lucie Film Society for the production of "Zora, the Documentary" ($20,000), and more recently to the Port St. Lucie Historical Society for Port St. Lucie 50th Anniversary events ($20,000). In the current Cultural Affairs Council agency account, in which mini-grant funds are budgeted, a balance of $12,610 remains for CAC mini-grants and other cultural affairs activities. Since the initial funding of twenty-three mini-grant applications, the Cultural Affairs Division has received four additional applications. The Cultural Affairs Council will meet within the next month to discuss grant applications for $1,000 from the following organizations: Future Generations, Brother Carl's Community Radio Program, Downtown Business Association's Art Walk, and the Juneteenth Celebration application from Sunrise City CHDD. In addition, staff would like to use funds from this account or the Art in Public Places account to host opening events for the three upcoming sculptures at the Lakewood Park, Lawnwood Regional Pazk, and the Avenue D Roundabout sites. In addition to the $1,000 in mini-grant funds, Sunrise City CHDD is requesting $5,000 from St. Lucie County for the Juneteenth Celebration. The Juneteenth Celebration event budget (Attachment 3) and their mini-grant application (Attachment 4) are attached. ITEM N0.3 Cultural Affairs Council Mini-Grant Program CAC MINI-GRANT The St. Lucie County Cultural Affairs Council mini-grant program supports a wide variety of cultural programming that serves the following goals: • Increase resources and efforts towards making the arts and culture accessible to all citizens of St. Lucie County while building future audiences for the arts. • Encourage partnerships with diverse community and cultural organizations. • Create a synergy of cultural events and activities that foster long-term impact on the community. Matching Funds: The Cultural Affairs Council will fund only those proposals which demonstrate evidence of a cash or in-kind match for the funds requested. Grant Monitoring: All grant recipients will sign a Certificate of Assurances that makes certain promises of reporting information to ensure financial and program accountability. Request Limit: Grant awards are limited to no more than $1,000 per recipient. It is not appropriate to seek the Cultural Affairs Council as asingle-source of program funds. These mini-grants serve as seed money to encourage program growth but should not be viewed as the only source of program revenue. Standards and sources of funding vary from fiscal year to year and this program may not be permanently available. Geographic Limits: Unless specifically noted, the St. Lucie County CAC only funds programs that physically take place within the geographic boundaries of St. Lucie County. Grant Period: The grant period covers events or programs scheduled from February 9, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Deadline for applications is February 9~', 2009. Eligibility: • Organizations must demonstrate non-profit status through certification from the State of Florida or 501 C3 or 501 C4 tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service • Organizations must be based in St. Lucie County and the event or activity must occur in St. Lucie County • Agencies may also be required to provide proof of liability insurance in effect for the date(s) of each event for which grant funds are requested • Applications for funding should demonstrate active pursuit of additional opportunities to coordinate, communicate and cooperate with diverse agencies and organizations such as the school board, chamber of commerce, tourist development councils, downtown development authorities, businesses, civic, volunteer and social service agencies • Re-granting is not allowed • Purely religious or political activities cannot be funded • Projects or events which are restrictive to private of exclusive participation, which shall include restricting access to programs on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, religion, disability or habitat will not be funded. Non-Allowable Costs: • General or administrative expenses • Expenses incurred or obligated before or after the grant period • Lobbying or attempting to influence federal, state or local legislators • Bad debts, contingencies, fines and penalties, interest and other financial costs • Private entertainment, food, beverages, plaques, awards or scholarships Acknowledgment: All promotional materials and press releases MUST give credit to the St. Lucie County Cultural Affairs Council and all other appropriate funding agencies. It is the grant recipient's responsibility to ensure that proper credit is provided. Failure to do so may impact any future grant applications. Copies of credit lines and logo will be provided to grant recipients. When appropriate, a CAC banner should be displayed at all sponsored events, furnished by the CAC. Compliance Form: All grant recipients will be required to fill out a Compliance Form evaluating the program. Failure to submit the form within 45 days after the event will disqualify organization from receiving future mini- grants. 2009 Mini-Grant Recipients Or anizaton Grant Project 1 Avenue D Boys Choir $1,000 Media Equipment 2 Community Outreach Youth Program, Inc. $500 Production of Play 3 St. Lucie Professional Arts League $1,000 Cultural Development for People of SLC 4 Art Mundo, Inc. $1,000 Art Festival 5 Bluebird Productions $1,000 Concert Series 6 Downtown Farmers' Market $1,000 Entertainment/artists eve Saturday 7 Fort Pierce Jazz and Blues Socie $1,000 Concerts 8 Friendl Sons and Dau hters of Ireland $1,000 St. Patrick's Day Festival 9 German American Club of the TC $1,000 Oktoberfest 10 Heathcote Botanical Gardens $1,000 Bloomin' Art and Plant Sale 11 Lincoln Park Main Street $1,000 Black History Advertising 12 Main Street of Fort Pierce $1,000 Plien Air Paint Out 13 Manatee Observation and Edu.-Nature Fest $1,000 Nature Festival 2009 14 National UDT -SEAL Museum $1,000 Muster XXIV 15 Philippine American Assoc. of TC $1,000 Friendship and Guttural Awareness Day 16 Port St. Lucie Commui Concert Band $1,000 PSL Community Concert Band 17 Puerto Rican Assoc. for Hispanic Affairs $1,000 San Juan Festival Business Expo 18 Smithsonian Institution $1,000 2009 World Ocean Day 19 St. Lucie Historical Socie $1,000 Santa Lucia Da 20 St. Mark Educational Center $1,000 Multicultural Festival 21 Treasure Coast Film Socie $1,000 Film Festival Events 22 Treasure Coast Symphon ,Inc. $1,000 2008-09 Concert Series 23 World Harvest Ea le Ministries $1,000 Gathering of the Arts fr the Nations 3 0° ~ °o °o °oi ~ i ~ I i } i i ~ ~ °o °o °o o p o °o o° °o °o p °o C C ~ C ~ °o °o °o °o ~ °o °o °o °o °o ~ °o C OO £ O O N ui h l0 u1 ~ to l!1 ~ O OC W ~ W K i ~ I ! 1 ~ ii ~ ~ ; t - i a~' ~ ~ ( ~ n s r~ ( ~ n o o u I N ~ i ° t L ~ ~ i ooLO~ a a . 33 30 N O N C Y! ~io`av~H ~oQa°O1~- d I~- I 0 7 0 o S o O a ~ o o ~ f ~ I ~ o 0 0 o p o 0 o p o o p o 0 o p 1~ y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 G 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ~ N N N ~ # Nf M N ~ .ti O t0 ti ~ W ~ ~ y f ~ ; ~ ~ ~ { l i ± ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ li N u~ ~ D) ~ ~ O Ol ~ y O ~ {I~ o c c l ` o n ~ v~ n a Z' c I l~ y N tp `'7 7 y u O N n y !fl OI y~ N Yl: N( U N 7 C N c ~ _a a~~ o ~ c i n ° ~ . cn o v ~ ~t c a~ ~ ~,a+~ u n c ~a~ ~o o i'i, m N +'Iy f~lj vinw~~f°1 = oaf ~7aa°1° av~f ~~I ;E a C u! r u r a! .4 S` a i r s C o u a c l! 7 S n I T l t i C I F L ~S 13 ?J T t' . ,w,o. u. ~_,n:+:+~cwvyisrn~~.-..~-a x^~~ressrc..en..wec,.r.-.,. ST. LUCIE COUNTY CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL 2009 MINI-GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAIL OR DELIVER TO: CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL Attn: Mini-Grant 5:00 P.M. on January 16, 2009 Grants and Disaster Recovery Department www.stlucieco.gov/culturalaffairs/ 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FI 34982 (772) 462-1767 SECTION A: PROGRAM INFORMATIO j . Florida County A! yes 2. Program Name --------~t~~'~'eG~1{~__C_~c6t~t~toa - - 3 Program Type (e.g. art show, concert etc.)~r~~'Lrrt.~~~Qc~~~,~,~~~ ~.~.-~'L?~------- 4. Amount of grant funds requested__~_lr_~Q ~ 5. Estimated number of persons to be served____~1z1~~10 ~ D 6. Cost per participant: amount of funds requested divided by the estimated number of participants in the event/project($/#)-------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION B: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Identify the agency and official who wilt sign the Certificate of Assurance, if selected for a grant: 1. Grantee agency name_ ~ ~ _~i~_ 1~ 2. Authorized Official's name___ Q~2 ~[__~~i ~ __________~---~--r~~_______________ 3. Street dress-----1~J~3.---~L_c~?,~~ ~ 4. City~~P_Q_t _~1 ~ ~.G-~=----------------- Florida Zip Code_ 3}~~v----------- 5. Telephone Number (77~_'.~7s?_-G06d_I77,2~!fLG_'_~p~~ 6. Federal Identification Number_ ~,~~_~~/!2-~ 7. Contractor agency status: Governmental____ Private not for pr fit Private for profit_____ 8. Name of fiscal officer~l2~L __~~i~1~14t~ _ Telephone numbe~~7..~~ ~l~,'t_~_~P_3_~ 9. Name of fiscal agency, if ndt Grantee_______________________________________________________ ~ 0. Program Director's name_mAL~~r~__~}$.~i^~ G1!___________~ 1 l .Mailing address for all program correspondence_1,~~__1Sl __~____~'r~_rT u_~_4__tZ/ 3'~s~s~ 12. Email of main contact person ~lZ2 ~A~f~?~~Jl~e~ ~~LS~T------------------ 13. Website:_1sl~ot!'~a.u-~R1~~~c}.~_J.'d~. -p~~----------------------------------------- 3 SECTION C: PROJECT DESCRIPTION L ) 1 , 1. Project Name ~ ~N_Cr~~~t?.?_7±,~- ~ ~-1 TI a'~ i.,L_~' o'-`? ~~_~='I~~~?^`) 2. Population Number to Be Served: Artists (participants) Audience ~D 1~_~/00 D 3. Total Project Cost ~a~ 4. Amount Requested From this Fund _ ~ _E d D a r------------------------------------------------- 5. Date and Place of Event J ~ _l7 = ~a07 t _~~4P! 0 ~ ~ o~A~_~??+a S~ 6. List other potential and actual sources of support for this project (put an * by those committed, noting any matching. fund requirements). AMOUNT FUND SECTION D: PROPOSAL NARRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS On a seaarate page. please answer the following as concisely as possible. Please limit your response to 500 words or less. Please limit responses to these questions only. 1. What type of program are you proposing? What overall changes are you trying to create and with whom? 2. What are the specific outcomes you seek to achieve? Describe in measurable terms the outcomes you are focusing upon. 3. How will you produce the changes described above? tnclude information about what participants will do -Describe their experiences. 4. How will you know the changes have occurred? Include information about how you will verify the extent to which participants achieve outcomes/performance targets. 5. What is the target audience? Briefty describe the geographic service areas (i.e., Port St. Lucie, Ft. Pierce, rural, etc.) and any issues of diversity (children, seniors, ethnic, handicapped, etc.) 6. What is the future of this project? Please list other funds that will be utilized to make this project successful. Also, please explain how this project will be continued in the future. NOTE: When responding to the Narrative section please answer all questions completely. Do not attach organization brochures or pamphlets to application. ("See Attached° is not an acceptable response to questions.) 4 SECTION E: PROJECT BUDGET Projected Income:. Federal Grant State Grant County Grant Request Other Government Grant $ ~Po~_ c Source__~- PIQ,~___-_________________ Other Grant $~rQ~~_ Source_~~L___-____________________ Other Grant $__~Da_?~ Source__.~p1l~_______________ Contracts/Fees for Services Contributions/Donations Fund-Raising Events Grantee Cash Contribution In-Kind Support _ Other $_~?D_~?~__ Describe_~iow_L7r!aL~!!'~___~~~'~~~5 Total Confirmed Project Income $ ~~t D.1?o_0 ~ Projected Expenses: Project expenses covered Total Project Expenses by this requested grant Salary and Wages Consultants/Contract Services Space costs Eq u i p m e n t Consumable supplies (Only $100 can be used for event refreshments.) Entertainment Travef Ph o n e/f ax Pri nti n g/Postage Training Eval uation In-Kind Expense Other $_L~p1~~OD _ Describe.~~~!m_ r~~_]r'-'11~ta(s,~t~,,- a ~"'~'q~lc"sl~~I~ Total Project Expenses $ f~Ov.v_~ _ 5 SECTION F: CERTIFICATION t do hereby certify that all facts, figures and representations made in this application are true and correct. Furthermore, all applicable statutes, regulations and procedures for program compliance and fiscal control will be implemented to ensure proper accountability of grant. The filing of this application has been authorized by the Grant Applicant and 1 have been duly authorized to act as the represent 'v f the r or in connection with this application. ~ ,~f - ~ v ur~ Print Authorized Official's ame Authorized fficial s Sign Name of Organisation Telephone number Date 6 C u l r u r a l A f f a i r s C o u n c i I S A I N T 1. U C l e C O U N T Y (RETURN THIS SHEET SIGNED WITH YOUR APPLICATION) ST. LUCIE CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL ACCOUNTABILITY CHECKLIST 45 days prior to the event, these guidelines must be in place: Licenses for city and/or county Permits-(facility, alcohol) Proof of Liability Insurance C.C. Location procured C_p!+ut~ NcS~ .p~~c~ *Receipts for purchases Entertainment booked Advertising proof Volunteers available Consumer's Certificate of Exemption 1 HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY CHECKLIST. Event chairperson's signature Date Please FAX or mail the final press information to the CAC office at (772) 462-2535, so we may assist with press and schedule a CAC Board member to attend the event. Any questions call (772) 462-1767. *Return 'Receipts for Purchases' with the EVALUATION/COMPLIANCE FORM after the event. DATE: May 14, 2009 TO: St. Lucie County Board of County Commission CC: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator FROM: Marjorie Harriell, Director of Juneteenth Toby Philpart, Director of Sunrise City CHDO RE: Request for funding for Juneteenth Attached please find our application for funding from the Cultural Affairs Department. As per the mini-grant application procedure we are requesting funding in the amount of $1,000 which is the maximum available under the program. In addition to the request fora $1,000 mini-grant we are respectfully requesting additional support from the County Commission in the amount of $4,000 to assist in providing this momentous celebration. Juneteenth, an annual celebration of freedom, recognizes the actual day when the last slaves in the United States were freed. We thank you in advance for your support. 1 SEASON OF FREEDOM JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION ITENARARY JUNE 9 - 30, 2009: JUNETEENTH AFRICAN AMERICAN ART EXHIBIT AT HISTORY MUSEUM WEDNESDAY JUNE 17, 2009: NOON DAY PRAYER, HYMN AND READING OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION AT TRIUMPH CHURCH 19~ AND AVE.D FRIDAY JUNE 19.2009: lOA.M. -1P.M. LIBATION CEREMONY AND YOUTH ARTS FESTIVAL AT DOWNTOWN FT.PIERCE AT MELODY LANE FRIDAY JUNE 19, 2009: 7P.M. UNCROWNED QUEENS AND KINGS CELEBRATION AT LINCOLN PARK COMMUNITY CENTER SATURDAY JUNE 20, 2009: 10 A.M. - 5 P.M. JUNETEENTH FESTIVAL IN THE PARK AT Lincoln Park COMMUNITY CENTER n ~N~ ~ bel laved and practiced ~R March 19, 2009 Dear Community Leaders and Business Owners, The Sunrise City Community Housing Development Organization, African American History Society, and the Lincoln Park Community Center all realize that Cultural events are productive for the entire community and allow the youth an opportunity to see positive things going on in their own community, so they can become productive citizens in their community. In doing so we will be hosting the 4~' Annual Juneteenth Celebration of Freedom. Our local Juneteenth Celebration is to educate the youth and their elders and to encourage and inspire more people to participate, to work together and to revitalize AMERICA'S COMMUMTIES. Juneteenth Freedom Celebration is being set- up to take the place of the Black Arts Festival that the County has supported in the past. This event will take place on June 15~', 19~', and 20~', 2009; during this Celebration we will have Juneteenth Uncrowned Queens & Kings Ceremony, Youth Gospel Sing Off, Real Men Cook Off, Dn,mming Presentation, Juneteenth History Presentations, and lots of fun for the entire Community. In the past this event has been supported by the City of Ft.Pierce, St.Lucie County Parks and Recreation,St.Lucie County School Board, St.Lucie County Cultural Affairs Council, Ft.Pierce Utilities. Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle Club South Florida Chapter, Ft.Pierce Redevelopment Agency, Children's Services Council, and Blended Magazine. In an effort make this event successful we aze requesting support from the Ft. Pierce . Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $10,000.00. We aze hope that in the future to secure grants and corporate support for this event. We will receive matching funds from the City of Ft.Pierce. You may make all checks ~ayable to sponsoring agency: Sunrise City CHDO (a 501 C3 organization), 1513 N. 23` St., Ft.Pierce , FL 34950. For information on this event you may Contact Marjorie Harrell at 772-475-6060 or Ms.Ann Bums at 772-466-3099. We would like to thank you in advance for helping us to provide positive programs for the Community. Sincerely, Toby Philpart; Director of Sunrise City CHDO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners Faye W. Outlaw, County Administrator FROM: Daniel 5. McIntyre, County Attorney: C.A. NO.: 09-0620 DATE: Mny 18, 2009 SUBJECT: City of Fort Pierce Resolution 09-23 Initiating Development of an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement with the City of Port St. Lucie pertaining to Properties North and West of Midway Road BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of an agenda item and background material prepared by Anne Satterlee ,Communications & Marketing Manager for the City of Fort Pierce. The background material includes a copy of City of Fort Pierce draft Resolution 09-23. The resolution proposes to initiate the process for negotiation of an interlocnl service boundary agreement with the City of Port St. Lucie. The issues identified in the draft resolution are: (1) issues concerning planning, annexation and service delivery for the area identified in the map attached to the resolution; (2) establishing Midway Road as the natural, geographical, and agreed boundary line for future annexations and utility service by either city; and (3) discuss improving coordination of transportation concurrency impacts on each jurisdiction's transportation network including collection of proportionate fair share payments. According to City Attorney Rob Schwerer, the City of Fort Pierce Commission adopted Resolution 09-23 on April 6, 2009. Mr. Schwerer also indicated that the City of Fort Pierce had not received n response yet from the City of Port St. Lucie. ITEM N0.4 DISCUSSION: Under the provisions of Section 171.203(3), Florida Statutes, the County has the option of requesting to participate in the negotiations between the two cities. One of the rensons that the Board may want to consider participating is that the issue of the provision of utility services north of Midway Rond has been raised as one of the three issues identified by the City of Fort Pierce. Since this is the County's utility service area, the County presumably would have an interest in making sure its rights are protected. Even if the County cannot come to an agreement on a joint interlocal service boundary agreement, the County would have a place at the table to henr what is going on and have an opportunity to intervene if the County's interests are being impacted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board consider discussing this issue at the Board's May 26, 2009 informal meeting. If the Board does determine to participate in the negotiations, the Board will need to adopt a resolution to this effect at the Board's June 2, 2009 meeting. DSM/caf Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 09--23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSSON Ok' THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPxER 171, BART II, E"1rORIDA STATU'T'ES, THE IN~'ERLOCAL SERVICE HOUNDARY~ AGREEMENT ACT, INITIATTN6 THE PROCESS FOR NEGOTIATION OF AN INTERLOC,AT, SERVICE HOUNDARX A(~REEL~N'T' WITH TBlU CITY OF PORT S'.L'. I~gCIE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING THE ISSUES A40RE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN. vP~1tEAS, • Part II, Chapter 177., Florida Statutes, entitled the "Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act" (Act) provides an alternative to Part T of said Chapter for local governments regardz~ag the annexation of texzitory into a municipality and the subtraction of territory from the unincorporated area of the County; and W~REAS, the Act further intends to provide as ,its principal goal the encouragement of local governments to jointly determine how to provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective manner while balancing the needs and desizes of the coz~munity and is further intended to encourage intergovernmental coordination and planning, service delivery and boundary adjustments and to reduce intergovernmental conflicts and litigation between local governments; and WHEREAS, the Act is intended to prevent inefficient service delivery and an insufficient tax base to support the del'J.vcry of those services; and on February 12, 2009, The Fort Pierce City Commission and the Port St. Lucie City Council held a Special 3oint Meeting to discuss annexation and issues of mutual concern pertaining to the area west and north of Midway Road as the understood natural boundary between the two municipalities, said area being more particularly desoribod and Shown in the attached map as Irxhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of k'oxt Pierce in accordance with the Act, wherein said resolution proposes for discussion certain issues, the majority of which the City believes are adequately addressed heretofore by policies and procedures existing or put into place by the City and with the consent and agreement of St. Lucie County and the City of Port St. Lue~.e, including but not limited to, an Interlocal Agreement dated F'ebruazy 10, 2404, as agreed to between the PPUA, 5t. Lucie County and Fort Pierce, and the City's Comprehensive Elan which provides fcr .annexation of pzoperties with~.n the Fort 1?~.erce Utilities Authority boundary in an orderly mannez promoting efficiency of public service provision anal economic vitality; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission of the City of Fort Piezoe, Florida to initiate discussions with the City of Port St Lucie regarding the development of an interlocal service boundary agreement to address the above refErenced concerns. Resolution No. 09-79 Page 2 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED DY THE CIT7C CONQ+TISSIO23 OE TSE CI`J!Y OF FOxt'.C PIERCE, FLORIDA: 1. The City Commission hereby adopts this initiating resolution pursuant to the Act and invites the City of Poxt St. Lucie, ~'loxi.da to commence the negotiations process. under the Act to enter znto an interlocal service boundary agreement to address issues concerning planning, annexation and service delivery £or the area identified herein. 2. Establishing that ax'ea o£ Midway Road west o£ 25th Street as the naturaz, geogzaphical, and agreed north/sCUth boundary life £ox future annexations and utility service by"either city. • 3. Discuss improving coord~.nation of transportation cpncurrency impacts on each jurisdictions transportation network includ~.ng collection of proportionate fair Share payments. 9. The C~.ty Managex or his designee is hereby directed to providQ a copy of this Resolution by United States Certified Mail to the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida. SE. IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution is and the 3aAtE shall become effective immediately upon adoption. IId WITI~SS REOF, thiq Resolution has been duly adopted this 6th .day of ,April, 2009. r`r..._~ ` YOR CoNR~IISSZONER AT~~sx: CITY CLERK (CITY SEAL) uN s ~ ` R's ~ ~I'TY OF' FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA o City Commission Meeting Agenda Item # ~3 C~T'~ Commission Meeting April 6, 2009 To :The Honorable Mayor and Members oft i Co Through : David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manag From :Anne Sattertee, Communicatons & Marketing Manager Re Resolution 09-23 Chapter 171, Part II Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement - Cifiy of Port St. Lucie Date :March 30, 2009 - ISSUE(S): Passage of Resolution 09-23, pursuant to Section 171.Z03(1)(b), F.S., initiating discussions regarding the development of an interlocal service boundary agreement with the City of Port St. Lucie pertaining to properties north and west of Midway Road. SUMMARY: At the February 12, 2009 Special Joint meeting with the City of Fort Pierce Commission and Port St. Lucie City Council agreed that unincorporated properties north of Midway Road should be in Fort Pierce's municipal boundaries. Both boards suggested staff collectively work towards an interlocal service boundary agreement to address issues concerning planning, annexation, service delivery, etc. in this particular area. FISCAL IMPACT: Loss of municipal ad valorem tax revenue; building, permitting fees; etc. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution to create official mechanisms to implement • the policies and regulations identified in the Comprehensive Plan, City Code and Fort Pierce Utility Service Agreement that would be beneficial to the City. AL' TERNATIVES: Do not adopt the resolution. RESPONSIBLE STAFF: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager Anne Satterlee, Communications & Marketing Manager COORDINATED WITH: Robert V. Schwerer, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 09-23 Minutes from Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 City of Fort Pierce, P.O. Box 1480, Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-1480 - 772.460.2200 RESOLUTION NO. 09-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT ACT, INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR NEGOTIATION OF AN INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING THE ISSUES MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN. WHEREAS, Part II, Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, entitled the "Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act" (Act) provides an alternative to Part I of said Chapter for local governments regarding the annexation of territory into a municipality and the subtraction of territory from the unincorporated area of the County; and vwFArrac~ the Act further intends to provide as its principal goal the encouragement of local governments to jointly determine how to provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective manner while balancing the needs and desires of the community and is further intended to encourage intergovernmental coordination and planning, service delivery and boundary adjustments and to reduce intergovernmental conflicts and litigation between local governments; and wwFRVac, the Act is intended to prevent inefficient service delivery and an insufficient •tax base to support the delivery of those services; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2009, The Fort Pierce City Commission and the Port St. Lucie City Council held a Special Joint Meeting to discuss annexation and issues of mutual concern pertaining to the area west and north of Midway Road as the understood natural boundary between the two municipalities, said area being more particularly described and shown in the attached map as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce in accordance with the Act, wherein said resolution proposes for discussion certain issues, the majority of which the City believes are adequately addressed heretofore by policies and procedures existing or put into place by the City and with the consent and agreement of St. Lucie County and the City of Port St. Lucie, including but not limited to, an Interlocal Agreement dated February 10, 2004, as agreed to between the FPUA, St. Lucie County and Fort Pierce, and the City's Comprehensive Plan which provides for annexation of properties within the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority boundary in an orderly manner promoting efficiency of public service provision and economic vitality; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida to initiate discussions with the City of Port St. Lucie regarding the development of an interlocal service boundary agreement to address the above referenced concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, B8 IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY CONIl~IISSION OF TH8 CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA: 1. The City Commission hereby adopts this initiating resolution pursuant to the Act and invites the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida to commence the negotiations process under the Act to enter into an interlocal service boundary agreement to address issues concerning planning, annexation and service delivery for the area identified herein. 2. Establishing Midway Road as the natural, geographical, and agreed boundary line for future annexations and utility service by either city. 3. Discuss improving coordination of transportation concurrency impacts on each jurisdiction's transportation network including collection of proportionate fair share payments. 4. The City Manager or his designee is hereby directed to provide a copy of this Resolution by United States Certified Mail to the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida. BE IT FUI2THEIt RESOLVED, that this Resolution is and the same shall become effective immediately upon adoption. IN WITNES3 WSEREOF, this Resolution has been duly adopted this day of , 2009. MAYOR MMISSIONER ATTEST: Appr ed a to Form and Correctness: By: CITY CLERK CIT ATTO Y (CITY SEAL) d~ r~ C~" ~ ~ d '~~~A e~ b ~ p. ~ n p ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ r; ~ o~ C ~ cD Q CD W . O- a d A r" e~ ~ G A ~ . C c ~ ~ 96 ~ ~ a' A e~" s , ,a ~ e~ f . m p ?t s=r} . ~ MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE PORT ST. LUCIE CITY COUNCIL, HELD IN THE FORT PIERCE CITY HALL, 2ND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, 100 NORTH U.S. (jl, FORT•PZERCE, FLORIDA AT 10:00 A.M. ON FEBRUARY 12, 2009. Mayor Benton called the meeting of the Fort Pierce City Commission to order at 10:10 a.m. Mayor Christensen called the meeting of the Port St. Lucie City Council to order. Upon Roll Call, those present for the Fort Pierce City Commission were: Mayor Robert Benton; Commissioners Rufus Alexander and Christine Coke; City Manager David Recor; City Attorney Rob Schwerer; and City Clerk Cassandra Steele. Those absent: Commissioners Edward Becht and Reginald Sessions. (Commissioner Sessions arrived at the meeting at 10:40 a.m.) Upon Roll Call, those present for the Port St. Lucie City council were: Mayor Patricia Christensen; Vice Mayor Jack Kelly; Councilwoman Linda Bartz and Councilman Christopher Cooper; City Manager Don Cooper; and City Attorney Roger Orr. Those absent: Councilwoman Michelle Berger. Fort Pierce Staff present: Jack Andrews, City Engineer, Jon Ward, FPRA Director; Anne Satterlee, Communications & Marketing Managers Marc Meyers, Building Official; Erica Ehly, Comprehensive Planner; . Paul Williams, Urban Forester; and Bill Thiess, FPUA Director. Port St. Lucie Staff present: Assistant City Manager Greg Orabec; Assistant City Manager Gerry Bentrott; Daniel Holbrook, Planning & Zoning Director; and Jesus Merejo, Director of Utilities. - ~ The purpose of the Special Joint Meeting was Discussion regardinu Annexation pf The Provences DevelQpP~en+ or~,~~d in the nop*hw~P t quadrant of I-95 and north of M sway Road and Discussion on issues 4f mutual concern - Annexe ion U ili ies Road e ~ Mayor Benton said he wants to thank the Port St. Lucie City Council for coming up here and joining them today. Mayor Christensen and he have discussed for a couple of months this annexation of The Provences that is in front of the Port St. Lucie City Council and their Planning & Zoning Board. Some of them have been around a long time remember they had a Gentleman's Agreement for many years when it comes to utilities and annexations, with Midway Road being the dividing line. The City of Fort Pierce had some concerns when they saw The Provences on Port St. Lucie's agenda. This is the first chance they have had to get everybody to the table to discuss it. He thinks they are really here today to try to reaffirm this Gentleman's Agreement they have had in the past. He will open it up to everyone. But he knows that was the City of Fort Pierce's concern, that it was on their agenda, and they are very concerned about the area north of Midway Road. Mayor Christensen said she is not sure if Staff is prepared to give any presentations or anything. But she was aware of the fact that this goes back to probably the early to mid 1990'x. Was there any discussion at any time of a formalized agreement to determine where the boundary lines would eventually end up? city Manager Cooper said the only discussion he ever had was with Bo Powell (former Fort Pierce City Manager) concerning the utilities at that time, not a discussion about annexations. They have the Joint Planning Agreement with St. Lucie County - which is much to do about nothing - which Port St. Lucie signed off, but the County didn't. That is really all that is out there. TIME MAR ~ 0 2009 CITY OF FT. PIERCE CITY MANAGER'S OFF{CE Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Mayor Christensen said that Joint Planning Agreement was the one several years ago that they asked them to formalize. City Manager Cooper said Port St. Lucie did and the County didn't. Mayor Benton said he knows there was some discussion years ago about the Alzheimer's facility down there when Fort Pierce Utilities Authority provided water on the south side of Midway Road. He thinks that is what brought everybody to the table. Fort Pierce has agreed since then to stay on their side. So everyone knows, the City of Fort Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie always got along very well. It has just been many years since they have sat down at the table and discussed issues. Commissioner Coke said she was thinking this was a rather informal kind of meeting, so she is surprised to see everybody here. Part of the reason that she wanted to get together as the two bodies here and have a discussion was not only this project in particular. She knows that six or seven years ago when there were some concerns about Indian River Estates and all kinds of other things, there were three entities and everybody was getting pitted against each other. The ten of them sat down and they agreed what they felt was beneficial to both the City of Fort Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie. Having that understanding took the third party "he said, she said" kind of thing out of the mix, They did that six or seven years ago and she walked out of• that meeting iai~th the understanding that they had kind of agreed on Midway Road and that they would go from there. She thinks Jack Kelly and she pushed to . have that meeting back then. She felt from that meeting forward there was much better communication between the two entities, and • there was no middle person involved trying to let them know what was going on, they could just communicate directly with each other. So she had concerns when she saw this, beoauae she knew when they had that meeting down in Port St. Lucie, that they had kind of agreed that Midway Road was the line. She thought before they get their noses out of joint, they should sit down and talk to them about it. Vice Mayor Kelly said part of his concern - speaking for himself, but he knows others expressed the same feelings - the Provences Annexation is not an issue for him. It is north of Midway Road. He doesn't know how long the Gentleman's Agreement has been there, but he wouldn't want to go north of Midway Road anyway. He thinks the issue is really a utility issue. He has heard others on his Council say the same thing. But he is speaking for himself. If he is incorrect, the others• can tell them. As far as they are concerned, here is Midway Road - north of Midway Road, Fort Pierce " takes care of the utilitiesi south of .Midway Road, Port St. Lucie takes care of the utilities. They do everything to help each other. If they need a Bulk Water Agreement for awhile, he doesn't want to do it forever, but that is fine with him if they just cooperate. Make it a regional deal, north and south regional, 'and just cooperate. That is what he always thought ft should be, and he has heard others on his Council say the same thing and he heard Fort Pierce say it. Port St. Lucie's utility is way ahead. They have arguably one of the best utilities in the State of Florida. Fort Pierce Utilities Authority could be better than Port St. Lucie's some day, they -are in the electric business, they are experienced. The County doesn't really have a utility - a very small or no utility. He knows there are County Commissioners who don't want to be in the utility business and some do. But that is 2 Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 neither here nor there. He thinks the annexation is a non-issue. He knows it is coming before the Planning 6 Zoning Board and it is premature; but he has already expressed his feelings about it. Commissioner Coke asked they should yell at the developer? Vice Mayor Ke11y said no, the developer is doing the best they can. It is a non issue for him. He thinks it is all about the utilities. It is pretty simple. The reason he doesn't want to do a long-term Bulk Plater Agreements is, it is about the wells. Fortunately they have thought ahead, because their city is going to become 250,000 people. Those wells are going to be important because the water wars are coming. If Fort Pierce wants to go . ahead and take care of the north and the County agrees, that is what they do. But they have to get their own well permits. He doesn't want to give up those wells they have now for the future of the bity to be used for long-term Bulk Water Agreements. That is how he feels about it. The Provences Annexation is a non-issue for him. Mayor Christensen said she would agree that utilities obviously is the issue; but she thinks they also have to look at the impacts that any development on the north side of Midway Road has on the total infrastructure of the City of Port St. Lucia on the south side of Midway Road. The Provences is a big development. There are going to be other developments that are going to come along in the future. Her biggest concern is whether it stays ih the County or it is in the City of Fort Pierce or even in the City of Port St. Luce, what those impacts are going to be to the already existing infrastructure, not just utilities. The developers that have annexed into the City of Port St. Lucie have obligated to pay for the road infrastructure. But now they have this development that is going to come in - what is their contribution going to be? Because they are going to have impacts. They are going to have impacts on their parka system, because this is right on their border. They are eventually going to have parks in that area and a number of other things. They are going to be right on their border. How is police protection going to serviced? So there are many issues that need to be determined, utilities being the major one. But still, any of those developments on the north side of Midway ARoad, how are they going to impact and how will they contribute toward those impacts they will have on Port St. Lucie's services? Vice Mayor Kelly said their Staff's recommendation, on Page 5 of 5 (Memorandum from Planning & Zoning dated January 7, 2009} it says: "Objective 9.2.2 of the Capital Improvements Element requires new development to bear 100 percent of the costs of facility improvements necessitated by the development. Until the departments responsible for maintaining level of service requirements have completed their review and made recommendations as to the conditions that should be included fn the annexation agreement, the Planning and Zoning Department staff finds it premature to support this proposal." But they have to pay 300. Mayor Christensen said but that would be if they annex into the City of Port St. Lucie. If they develop in the County or they develop in the City of Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie doesn't have those assurances, and that is where her concerns come in. Vice Mayor Ke11y said he is sure the Capital Improvements Element requires 100$. 3 Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Mayor Benton said Fort Pierce would want to do the same, as they do now with annexations and stuff that affects the County, they bring them to the first meetings when the developer comes in because they want to work along with the County. In this case it would be Port St. Lucie. They would want Port St. Lucie to sign off on the site plans, etc. before it even hits their Planning Board. They want to agree to these things. It is like the utilities, they don't have the ability to spend the capital to put the infrastructure in place for this, the developer would be required to pay for that. Vice Mayor Kelly said he is taking it for granted that all the impacts to the cities would be... The thing is, if they are going to annex it, it has got to have future advantages and benefits, on don't annex it. He is just not worried because it is a utility issue. If anybody wants to annex into their city, most of the time they want to annex because of the utilities and they come right out and say it. That is his feeling, it is a utility issue, not an annexation issue. Mayor Benton said he asked Bill Thiess (Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Director) to be here today because he knows FPUA would not have the ability right now to furnish utilities. it would be something that he is sure they could work out with Port St. Lucie to furnish utilities, as they did with Tropicana, he thinks they were already there taking care of them. 3o that would not be an issue with Fort Pierce because they don't have the ability. Commissioner Coke said her concern certainly was the fact that Fort Pierce needs to have a future. And if they all agree that Midway Road is the future, then she is a very happy person. She didn't really want to sit here with however many of them showed up today and try to nitpick about utility agzeements, how long, bulk water, and all those other things. Her theory would be that if they can all agree on that, then they can charge Staff and the Utilities Authority that this is what they want done, this is what needs to be done, and this is the time frame that it needs to be done fn, so that Port St. Lucie feels comfortable and the City of Fort Pierce feels comfortable in order to enable them to expand to their full potential also. They don't want to do anything that is going to ' burden Port St. Lucie. ' Mayor Christensen said she would suggest that their Staffs get together and work out an Interlocal Agreement that they can bring • to both Boards to address these issues to both cities satisfaction. Again, that is providing that the Provences is in Fort Pierce. Right now it is in the County. She is not sure what the process would be for it to become part of the City of Fort Pierce. They applied for annexation with the City of Port St: Lucie. They have to get through that process and then they will have to make a decision based on whatever the final decision is by the City and move forward. But she does agree there needs to be an Interlocal Agreement or a Joint Planning Agreement. She truly wishes the County had approved the Joint Planning Agreement that the County had asked for and they discussed many times. Commissioner Coke said she doesn't think it would have helped, because Fort Pierce entered into one with the County and they haven't gotten any feedback on anything. Every time the City sends feedback to the County on something, it is completely disregarded anyway. The fact that Fort Pierce signed on the dotted line and the County signed on the dotted line, it hasn't been of any benefit 9 Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 really to either staff or more importantly the citizens that are affected by the developments that go into both areas. Mayor Christensen said it is just the fact that the County Commissioners felt it was imperative that they have this; and when • they finally come to an agreement, the County won't sign it. Vice Mayor Kelly said the Midway Road demarcation idea, he wasn't the first one to say it, Councilman Cooper has been saying that for three or four years. He doesn't know how he still feels about that, but he said that a long time ago. It is not his idea, it was Councilman Cooper's. He just bought into it. Does he still feel that way? Councilman Cooper -said he is not sure if he does or doesn't feel that way right now either. Everything changes. His concern is, he doesn't know if Port St. Lucie has the ability to service them and he doesn't know if Fort Pierce has the ability to service them. To him, it is more than the utilities. Somebody is going to have to provide police, parks and recreation. Fort Pierce doesn't have a Parka & Recreation Department; so if the County ends up doing it, then that is Port St. Lucie, they are the ones contributing the majority of the money to the County. So now he is kind of back on the fence, because it seems to him that somehow at some future point Port St. Lucie is going to be servicing part of this anyhow. They had the same problem down on St. James. The majority of the people using those parks there come from Fort Pierce, but Port St. Lucie paid for those parks. He is just throwing this out there. Does Fort Pierce have the ability to service that for other needs? It is not just a utilities issue to him. And who are they to tell the developer•whfch city this is going to be a part of? It seems to him that is where they are at right now. They are going to annex into one or the other, and one or the other is going to take them, and that is a whole new problem. He agrees that splitting the County down the middle at that point just kind of opens up a whole new ball game for him. Commissioner Coke said just for information, they are in the process right... The County, not by request, just decided to give Fo;t Pierce all of their parks within the City. Tha County with no notification gave them the St. Lucie County Community Center, which is now the City of Fort Pierce Community Center. Thank goodness Mr. Recor and Staff jumped up and they have already begun the preliminary groundwork for establishing a Recreation Department that will be operating through there. it has been his goal for seven years to have the City be in charge of their own recreation facilities. Commissioner Alexander had joined her and now Commissioner Sessions fs right on board with that theory also. They are going to have to take baby steps, no doubt about it; but they will be moving forward to handle .the recreation needs. As part of that they are renegotiating the Parks MSTU. Port St. Lucie got that $29 million direct allocation from that and Fort Pierce got zero because the County was then taking care of their parks and the capital improvement that went with it. Vice Mayor Ke11y asked what $29 million? Commissioner Coke said that was a direct allocation over the life of the bond the County gave Port 5t. Lucie. Mayor Christensen said not quite that much. • 5 ~ Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Commissioner Coke said that is the paperwork the County presented when they put the MSTU to a vote. Mayor Christensen said keep in mind that the County keeps playing • with the millage on this, so the amount fluctuates. Commissioner Coke said but Fort Pierce got zero. The point she was trying to make was that the City of Fort Pierce got zero. However, in December 2008 they put the County on notice that they would either be withdrawing from that or they could renegotiate it with them, so Fort Pierce gets a fair percentage which would enable them to build more parks and make capital improvements' in the existing parks. Councilman Cooper said he has asked for Port St. Lucie•to get out of that too or to renegotiate that, because he is not happy with the way that is being doled out either. Mayor Benton said•Port St. Lucie stepped up and took the lead and created impact fees and took that fight on with the County. Fort Pierce has followed, so their impact fees are slowly coming into effect. They are not putting it at 100$ because of the economy. But as development does occur in these areas, at least the capital needed for items such as police substations is available, which they didn't have before. He wants to thank Port St. Lucie for taking that step with the County, because Fort Pierce isn't getting their fair share either. Councilman Cooper asked have they gotten to the point with this, like they have with the southwest annexations, where they stepped up to designate future fire station sites and school sites? Or are they premature on that? Mayor Banton said that is premature. Wouldn't that happen through the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) process? Councilman Cooper said that is still another concern. Mayor Christensen said she thinks they have actually already done that; because she knows when ft went before Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, it was already done. She knows there was some discussion in regards to the school site and where the school site was located. She is sure the fire station has been addressed •too. Councilman Cooper said he has seen the residential and the commercial in the paperwork, but he didn't see... ' Mayor Christensen said it may be that they only have to contribute dollars toward the fire district rather than designate a fire atatibn site. She can't recall. It has been some time since she saw it at~the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. There is parks and open space. Everything is there, laid out. Vice Mayor Kelly said he wants to comment on something Councilman Cooper said. He is right, it is not just a utility issue. But predominantly, it is a utility issue. No matter what happens, this will impact Port St. Lucie because it is on their border. Maybe they will use their parks and roads and things.' But he wants to remind them, Port St. Lucie residents also use Fort Pierce's Beaches, their boat ramps, and the Sunrise Theatre. He eats at a lot of the restaurants up here. They are neighbors, so they are going to overlap in things. 6 Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Mayor Christensen said but they pay County taxes for those services. Vice Mayor Kelly said he knows they do. And they come up and use them. But they ride on their roads to. use them. Mayor Christensen said but these residents in the City of Fort Pierce would not be paying taxes to use the facilities in Port St. Lucie. She is not disagreeing with him. What she is saying is, there has got to be an agreement. Mayor Benton mentioned that they would be happy to sit down and come to an agreement with Port St. Lucie to address those impacts they are going to have. The • developer would have to contribute monetarally towards the impacts they are going to have. Why should the Port St. Lucie developments on the south side of Midway Road pay for all of that infrastructure, When the developments on the north side of Midway Road are going to benefit from that infrastructure? She is not talking just about utilities. She is talking about roads, she is talking about future roads that will be built at some time by those future developments. Commissioner Coke asked couldn't they have a fair share contribution system they would work out? Mayor Christensen said that is what she is saying. Vice Mayor Kelly said the ARI process takes care of all that. Mayor Christensen said right now she is not sure of how much they understand what the City of Port St. Lucie has done. But with all of the developers and the land owners on the south side of Midway . Road within their utility service boundaries, they have laid out a road network. Right now those roads don't exist. But before any more development took place, they wanted to ensure there was going to be a road grid to move the traffic internally, but also to get it to the main arteries. Those developers at this point have agreed to pay for that infrastructure. Commissioner Coke said Fort Pierce does that as a condition of approval. Mayor Christensen said but what she is trying to say is, the developments on the north side are going to cross Midway Road and use all of those roads. Her concern is that there should be a fair " share equity in the fact that the northern development will impact the southern traffic network that has been put in place. They want guarantees that there is going to be some fair share equity. Commissioner Coke asked isn't that kfnd of like when they have somebody who wants to build in Fort Pierce, the County might say there is going to be an impact on a road that fide or six miles away and charge them a fair share contribution toward that road? That is the same kind of thing they are talking about. Mayor Christensen said she does not know if they have ever had to deal with that. Have they? City Manager Cooper said they do it internally. Mayor Christensen said they do it internally, but they have never had any relationship with the County on anything like that. 7 Special Joint Meeting ~ February 12, 2009 Mayor Benton said Fort Pierce has. They approved a development maybe a quarter of a mile north of Midway Road where the County told the developer they would have to put $1 million up towards improvements to Midway Road. He thinks this discussion will bring them even more into when and how and doing their fair share toward Midway Road, because he thinks they have been sort of out of the picture on that. He knows that has been a big concern for several years with the County and with Port St. Lucie. Fort Pierce hae just been reaching out and annexing into the White City area, so he thinks *hey are at the table now. Commissioner Alexander said they are sister cities, they are in the same County. For them to be discussing this one project, they should be discussing their entire east to west on that corridor. His concern is with the economy today, what is the surety that they are going to have this even come to fruition? The discussion they are having now is great and it should continue on for the future. This~one project is the tip of the iceberg. It should be a collaborative effort from both Cities and the County, that is the way he looks at it. How many homes are they speaking of - 4,400? He doesn't see that. That is just his vision of what is going on here. This is something that is going to come in and put a wedge between the two cities? He doesn't see it, because it is going to be development one day anyway. So it should not be a wedge, it should be a collaborative effort to go forth on this. Councilman Cooper said he is looking at•the backup and it says 9,443 homes. Mayor Christensen said that is a combination of single and multi- family. Mr. Dennis Murphy, Culpepper & Terpening Inc., said that is the old number. The new number is 3,500 residential. Commissioner Alexander asked when does he see that becoming actuality? Mr. Murphy said residentially, not~for a number of years. Non- residential, they are actively marketing it. Commissioner Alexander said again ha is just putting emphasis on Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce, they should be sharing facilities. He welcomes Port St. Lucie residents to come up here and look at the string of pearls Fort Pierce has, and everything is in place • already. (Commissioner Sessions arrived at the meeting at 10:40 a.m.) Mayor Christensen said don't get her wrong, she is not saying she doesn't want Fort Pierce residents to use their facilities. She is looking at the impacts for future development. She doesn't want her residents paying for infrastructure that is going to be used by Fort Pierce and the County. And she dcesn't think Fort Pierce would want Port St. Lucie residents using their infrastructure without them contributing to it. Commissioner Coke said they are always going to overlap though. Commissioner Alexander said he is just again saying they welcome Port St. Lucie residents. Whether it is Fort Pierce or whether it is Port St. Lucie, they are all St. Lucie County residents. 8 Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Everyone pays taxes in St. Lucie County regardless. But this demarcation here on Midway Road should be null and void between the cities because there should be an overlap to make some type of cohesiveness there. Mayor Benton said the presentation being made in the last few months at the Tourist Development Council with the Bahamas, the approach is that they are St. Lucie County. Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce make up the majority of the County. To sell themselves, Port St. Lucie has golf courses and Fort Pierce has the beaches. But they both have what people want and it is just working together to provide it. Councilwoman Bartz said Commissioner Alexander brings some valuable comments to the table. The fact is, they are touching the tip of the iceberg by looking at one development. There is a demarcation line. And she thinks they need to start working now on what their needs•are and future planning, as they impact each other. Right, they are all one County - residents of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie and the County. But they need to start working together now because of the impact on all of those residents. She does agree• that what they are talking about now is just the tip. They really need to start talking about the future and what is going to happen, because there is a lot of land on Midway Road. There is a lot of development that will be going on long after their times. So if they can place some of those plans and those agreements together now for future development, she thinks they are ahead of the game. Mayor Benton said especially now, while they have a lull in the economy and the push. It was only a couple of years ago when they had so much on their plates. So now is a perfect time. He thinks amending their Comprehensive Plans, they are looking after each other. City Manager Recor said he thinks a good way to characterize the discussion they are having today is, this is nothing more than growing pains. For the longest time the City's annexation strategy • has been fairly compact. But in the last year since they have aggressively stepped up their annexations, they have started to stretch out their arms a bit and now they are touching on areas that they traditionally have not. He thinks it is good to hear that there is a general consensus for Midway Road being the boundary. He thinks both City Attorneys would agree that the Florida annexation laws encourage boundaries along major geographical boundaries - roads, rivers, water bodies, and what not - and that seems to be a logical transition. They have demonstrated through Interlocal Agreement and Joint Planning Agreement with the County where developments have impact on each other's service area, particularly in transportation and concurrency management, the willingness and reciprocation of a fair share contribution for roads. He is hearing the same thing today. It is these growing pins that are necessitating these discussions. He thinks that is what they should be focusing on as they move forward, because the issue is much larger than just this one development. Fort Pierce is currently annexing in the area. They are but a stone's throw away from being contiguous with Provences as they speak. They have an Annexation Agreement with 9Pa1-Mart, a deferred property tax schedule that goes into effect in 2014. The St. Lucie County Landfill property is eligible for annexation in February of this year. So they eventually will be contiguous with Provences. But he thinks the issue is, as Councilwoman Bartz pointed out, a larger issue than just this one project. 9 Special~Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Vice Mayor Kelly said what they have here now, the Provences, there is really nothing to discuss and he thinks it fs out of order. They are going to have it on their Agenda next week; so after that, they will know whether Port St. Lucie plans to annex it or not. Do they know what the status of that...? They had a letter two months ago from their City Manager who recommended against the annexation, pretty strongly. It is a bigger issue, everybody knows that. They are pretty experienced on these annexations. Port St. Lucie annexed 15 square miles on the Martin County line. They got upset and they voiced the same concerns that the Mayor just did. And they were straightened out in the DRI process. He has no doubt they will be straightened out even better and address their concerns because Fort Pierce is to their neighbor. So any concerns they have, they will straighten out the same way at the table, the DRI process. He thinks the Mayor already hit the nail on the head, she already asked that Staffs get together and work out something on the demarcation of Midway Road. And if they need a consensus on that... He thinks that is the issue. He is all for that, if that is w11at they want the Staffs to do. That will start to address the impact it is going to have on Midway Road. The utility issue has to get resolved before they can move forward with anything else. He thinks that is a big thing. The County is going to have to be involved, because they do have a utility. Most of it is north of Midway Road, right? That is the issue. If they need a consensus, he thinks their Staff's should get together, let's see what happens next week with the Provences, and then move forward with all the other annexations. It xill all be straightened out by the DRT process. They are very familiar with the DRI process. Mayor Benton said that is why both Mayors decided to call everybody to the table. They felt this could be handled by Staff; but Staff decided they wanted to hear from all of the elected officials, so that is why they are all here. Send both Staffs to the table to bring something back to them that they all can agree on and get moving in the right direction. Vice Mayor Kelly said political will turns the wheels. Councilman Cooper said they are fortunate enough in the County that they only have two cities, unlike others to the south of them that have 20-plus municipalities. He thinks at some point the County will be divided and Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie will take over and the County will be pretty much put out of business except for government items they have to take care of like the jail and courthouse and things like that. That is a good thing though, because it gets rid of duplication of services. He forgets the numbers, but Jesus Merejo says Port St. Lucie produces more water in an hour than the County does in a week or something like that. It is almost ridiculous for the County to be in some of these businesses. It is good that Fort Pierce is working towards taking over their parka system, because there should only be two parks systems - Port.St. Lucie and Fort Pierce. So it is good to have conversation, trying to.work things back and forth. Midway Road • has been what they have unofficially agreed on to be the dividing line and he is still good with that. He has said from day one that Fort Pierce should be north of Midway Road and Port St. Lucie should be south of Midway Road. Staffs should go back and do what they need to do to make it happen. At some point if they can make it official, then the developers will know; and they won't need to come to Port St. Lucie if they are north of Midway Road. 10 • . Special Joint Meeting February 12, 2009 Mayor Christensen asked is there consensus on the Port St. Lucie City Council that they have Staff work with the City of Fort Pierce? (The Council agreed.) Mayor Benton asked does Fort Pierce feel the same? (The Commissioners agreed.) Councilman Cooper said everybody says they want all of these developments to stop. There probably is a different way to do it. But if it comes into the City of Port St. Lucie, it will happen. If it goes to Fort Pierce, it will happen. If it stays in the County, it is going to happen. As much as they claim they are anti-growth and they don't want things to happen, from what he sees it is not okay for it to happen in their cities; but when they stay in the County, they allow it to happen. So they are not walking the walk, because if they were against ft, then they would toe the line. But as long as they are getting a piece of the pie, it doesn't seem to matter. Commissioner Coke said she has always been a firm believer that if an area reaches a certain population density, it should become part of one of the two cities that are in the County. She really in her heart believes that benefits the County. The County should never be considering a development of this type, it is diametrically opposed to the definition of County. A development like this is in a city. Big housing developments with all that density should be in a city. If any development of this size or with a certain density level were part of either City, it would free up County Staff and County time and County money most importantly from planning and reviewing all these things that really shouldn't be in the County. dive the Cfty the responsibility of what is going to be in their City eventually anyway. That gives the County the money and the time to concentrate on the areas that are defined typically as County government such as the Sheriff's Department, the County roads, and the Court system. Mayor Benton asked do they have anything else they would like to bring to the table while they are here? Mayor Christensen asked do they want to touch on the utilities? Mayor Benton said he is the only Commissioner who site on the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority~Board, whereas the Port St. Lucie Council is their Utilities Board. So he thinks that is something their utility staffs could work out and come back to them. Mayor Christensen asked does Staff have anything else? Mayor Benton asked does Staff have anything they would like to add? They haven't heard anything from the City Attorneys, but he thinks they know each other well and get along. He thanks everyone who showed up today. There being no further business, Mayor Benton declared the meeting of the Fort Pierce City Commission adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Adjournment. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR COMMISSIONER lI INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA • TD: Board of County Commissioners Faye W. Outlaw, MPA, County Administrator FROM: Daniel 5. McIntyre, County Attorney C. A . NO.: 09-0611 _ DATE: May 13, 2009 SUBJECT: Revised Joint Planning and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement - City of Fort Pierce Attached is a revised Joint Planning and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement. The revised Agreement is presented in clean and blackline form. DSM/caf Attachment Copy to: Growth Management Director Ben D. DeVries, Executive Director R. McClaren, Esq. ~ECEIVEG MAY 1 8 ~~'3 CO. ADt~?~NiSt~~TIG ITEM N0.5 JOINT PLANNING AND INTERLOCaI_ SERVICE 6oUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY (TREASURE COAST RESEARCH ~ DEVELOPMENT PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS) This Joint Planning and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (the "Afire meat" is made and entered into this day of , 2009, by and between t e City of Fort Pierce, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the S ate of Florida (the "City") and St. Lucie County, a political subdivision of the State of Flori a (the "County"). WHEREAS, the City possesses Municipal Home Rule Powers pursuant to Articl VIII, Section 2(b), Florida Constitution and Section 166.021, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the County.possesses Home Rule powers as anon-charter county pu scant to Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01, lorida Statutes, encourages and empowers local government to cooperate with one anot er on matters of mutual interest and advantage, and provides for interlocal agreements b tween local governments on matters such as annexation and joint planning; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Annexation or Contraction Act, Chapter 171, Part I, lorida Statutes, and the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act, Chapter 171, Part II, lorida Statutes, recognizes the use of interlocal service boundary agreements and joint pl Wing agreements as a means to coordinate future Innd use, public facilities and servic ,and protection of natural resources in advance of annexation; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning- and Land ~evelo meat Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, requires that counties and cities include in their respective planning efforts intergovernmental coordination and partic larly, mechanisms for identifying and implementing joint planning areas, especially for the p rpose of annexation; and 5.\BITTY\~GREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Park B-L.wpd Page 1 f 15 WHEREAS, Tthe State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to direct development to those areas which have in place the land and water resources, fiscal abilities and service capacities to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner; and WHEREAS, the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to protect the substantial investment in public facilities that already exist and to plan for and finance new facilities in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; and, WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to adequately plan and develop the area around the Treasure Coast Research and development Park ("Research Park"), ns depicted on Composite Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and surrounding areas, identify the appropriate Innd uses and transportation inf rastructure needs and provider for such lands, ensure protection of natural resources, jointly develop economic development initiatives including the identification of jobs corridors and agree on certain procedures for the timely review and processing of development proposals within those areas; and . WHEREAS, the extension of City and County facilities and services to the Research Park and surrounding areas should be provided in prioritized phases. The process and timing of annexation and development review processes f or certain designated areas of the City and County should be clearly identif ied and jointly coordinated in advance of the City and County capital planning, commitment, and expenditure; and WHEREAS, Subsection 163.3171(3), Florida Statutes, provides for the adoption of joint planning agreements to allow counties and municipalities to exercise jointly the powers granted under the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City, after consultation with its staff, has determined that the lands included in the Joint Planning Area described herein may be necessary to reasonably accommodate urban growth projected in the City during the term of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City and the County find that the benefits of intergovernmental communications and coordination will accrue to both Parties; and WHEREAS, the elected officials of the City and the County have met and negotiated in good faith io resolve issues relating to annexation and joint planning of the anei-garrettndtng areas surrounding the Research Park and wish. to memorialize their understanding in this Agreement; and 5.\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Pnrk B-L.wpd Page 2 of 15 WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of Article II of the Florida Constitution, the City of Fort Pierce Charter, and Chapters 125,163,166 d 171, Florida Statutes (2008). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth n this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City nd the County agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Preamble. The Preamble above is true and correct and incorp rated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2. Establishment of Joint Planning Area. To establish the means and process b which future annexations and planning activities will be accomplished, the City and the Coun (the "Parties") hereby establish a Joint Planning Area (JPA), depicted in Composite Exhi it "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All areas specifically deli ented, mapped and referenced in the legend on Composite Exhibit "A" are within the JPA. 3, t~~+~+~+~~r Future Annexations. A. Within the Joint Planning Area, the City and the County agree to the fo lowing criteria on annexation: 1. The City agrees not to annex any property within the Researc Park. The County agrees not to use as a basis for objecting to annexations adjacent o the Research Park the fact that the Research Park has not been annexed into the City an such adjacent properties are not contiguous to the City municipal boundaries urs nt to art II Chapter 171 Florida Statutes. 2. The Coun is willin to disc s as rt o e otiations on a b oader interlocal service boundaryagreement whether Tthe areas outside the Research P k but inside the FPUA retail service area, designated on Composite Exhibit "A" as Po ential Annexation Area "A", may be annexed by the City without the requirement of contigui with City municipal boundaries. 3. Other areas outside the Research Park and outside the FPUA retail service area, designated on Composite Exhibit 'A" as " Area " are eligible for annexation by the City with the prior written consent of the County i th are within the Urban Service Boundary b~. 5:\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRdcD Park B-L.wpd Page 3 of 15 B. The City and the County agree to develop a schedule of annexation for properties within Potential Annexation Area "A" and "B" that consist of land likely to be developed for urban and economic development purposes under the term of this Agreement and which are therefore appropriate for annexation by the City, C. The City and County agree that the City shall provide notice to the County within thirty (30) days of receipt of any petition to annex properties within the JPA or initiation of an annexation ordinance by the City. 4. County Consent to Annexations of Potential Annexation Areas by the City, If nn annexation ordinance of the City is adopted under the conditions set forth in this Agreement, the County will not challenge, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, such annexations by the City set forth in said annexation ordinance. . 5. Land Use Infrastructure and Environmental Agreements for Potential Annexation Arens A: Process for Incorporating Potential Annexation Areas into City CorQprehensive Plan. Future land uses are identified herein and agreed to by the City and the County for each of the Wrens within Potential Annexation Area "A" and-Raterrt+cl ~Mrte~tctieh Area "B". These future land uses will be examined during the City's comprehensive plan update pursuant to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. During the process to update the City's comprehensive plan, the City and County will agree on future Innd use categories and design guidelines for the specific lands in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Area "B". The City will adopt the freed to future land uses as an overlay to its comprehensive plan. Specific policies addressing allocations of acreage, density, and intensity of development shall be included for each future land use category.-=i -o~m- . Once in effect, the overlay wi II serve to govern any future land use map amendments occurring after annexation. Prior to annexation, the County will not revise its future Innd uses to redesignate any parcels in Potential Annexation Aren "A" and Area "B" to a use incompatible with the designations set forth in this Agreement or the overlay. " N N I/ 5:\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Park B-L.wpd Page 4 of 15 E 5e1'Yite-~el`iVet'Y ~~e111Fef f~da#Hf'~+l'6eg IEC~'YiC ~~01"tda'RONFefi~t~i~~ ~f01"R1MfQ~er y rJO~e . ~ ~ 6. Interctovernmental Review and Coordination. A. Coordination of Develouments of Extrcjurisdictional Impact. The ity and the County agree that the impacts of certain development, herein referred to as "Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impacts," in close proximity to the boundaries of the Research Park, whether within the City limits or in the unincorporated area of the ounty, require that the Parties closely coordinate such developments in order to assure the rderly and efficient provision of public facilities and services and compatibility of land us B. Developments of Extra jurisdictional Impact. defined. Developm nt of Extrajurisdictional Impact shall have meaning: Any development within the Joint anning Area set forth on Composite Exhibit "A". 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRbD Park B-L.wpd Page of 15 C. Coordination of County Plannina A_ ctivit~ The County will give the City Planning Director, or designee, written notice of the following matters or applications that relate to Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact located within the unincorporated area of the County depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" which matters or applications include but are not limited to: (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (2) Rezonings; (3) Conditional uses/Special Exceptions; (4) Planned Unit Developments; or (5) Site Plans D. Development ProQosals within the City's Jurisdiction. The City will give the County Growth Management Director, or his designee, written notice of matters or applications that relate to Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact located within the municipal boundaries of the City depicted on Composite Exhibit `A" which matters or applications include but are not limited to: (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (2) Rezonings; (3) Conditional Uses/Special Exceptions; (4) Planned Unit Developments; or ' (5) Site Plans E. Process for Coordination of Developments of Extra jurisdictional Impact. The Parties will adhere to the following process in order to facilitate intergovernmental coordination regarding Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact: (1) Not later than thirty (30) days after receiving an application, and in no event less than thirty (30) days prior to any public hearing on a proposed Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact, the Party with approval authority (the "Approving Party") will transmit the application packet for the proposed development, including all back-up material, to the other Party (the "Reviewing Party"). a. The Approving Party wi I) transmit any substantive changes to the application packet made during the review process to the Reviewing Party within five (5) business days of its receipt by the Approving Party and in no event less than thirty (30) days prior to any public hearing. 5.\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR4D Park B-L.wpd Page 6 of 15 b. The Reviewing Party will transmit comments within twen (ZO) working days of receipt of the item(s) listed in subparagraphs C.1, 2, or 3 or D.1. , or 3, above. If the Reviewing Party does not respond in writing within twenty (20) workin days, then it is deemed to have no recommended conditions for inclusion in the comprehensi a plan amendment, rezoning, special exception or development concept plan. c. The parties agree to take reasonable steps to facilita a the review process set forth herein. (2) Agreement to Incorporate Conditions. a. The City's recommendation to the City Planning and oning Advisory Board and City Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a pr posed pevelopment of Extra jurisdictional Impact will set forth all County-proposed stipulatio that are based on adopted County standards, neighborhood and community plans, in ustry standards, or common agreement between the City and County. b. The County's recommendation to the County Planning b oning Commission and County Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a pr posed Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact will set forth all City-proposed stipulatio that are based on adopted City standards, neighborhood and community plans, industry star ands, or common agreement between the City and County. ' F. Approval of Reviewing Party Not Required. Notwithstanding the pro isions set forth in Section 6.E.(Z) hereof, unless otherwise specified herein in Paragraphs 5 nd 9, the Parties will not construe any provision of this Agreement to require: (1) City approval of the County's planning activities or of Developme is of Extrajurisdictional Impact within the unincorporated area of the County; or (2) County approval of the City's planning activities or of Developme is of Extrgjurisdictional Impact within municipal boundaries of the City. G. Coordination of Further Planning Efforts in the JPA. The City n d the County agree to coordinate further long range planning efforts and studies within th JPA. This coordination includes, but is not necessarily limited to (a) implementation of the P nned Nonresidential Development overlay district within the Research Park; (b) implements ion of a Transportation Concurrency Management Area for Kings Highway; (c) a design chore a for the parcels in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Area "B". 5:\Arn\~GREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Park B-L.wpd Pnge 7 pf 15 7. Incorporation into Comprehensive Plans. No later than the next City EAR plan amendments, the Parties will incorporate into the Future Land Use, Transportation, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, and as necessary other Elements of their respective Comprehensive Plans the provisions of this Agreement as is necessary to effectuate the intent of the Agreement and the obligations assumed by each of the Parties. As necessary, within one year of adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments, the Parties will amend their Land Development Codes. 8. Alternative Dispute Rcsolution. The parties agree to resolve any dispute related to the interpretation or performance of this Agreement in the manner described in Chapter 164. Florida Statutes #Fr+g ~ettten. ~ispti#t . E: 8: 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTFRLOC\FP-TCR~O Park B-L.wpd Page 8 of 15 tr ' 9. Agreement on Additional Substantive Standards and Issues. In addition to the matters set forth above, the Parties agree to the following additional substantive sta Bards and issues: A. Each party agrees that as a part of its review of development appy atibns within the JPA set forth in Composite Exhibit "A" that it will apply its own comprehensi a plan policies, land development regulations and methodologies to assess the impacts on th public facilities for which it is financially responsible. In addition, any application in which concurrency is determined will be provided to the other party .which will con uct a concurrency review based on its comprehensive plan policies, land development regulati ns and methodologies to address impacts to public facilities which are its financial respon ibiliiy. Any concurrency approval will incorporate the results of reviews by both Parties. B. The Parties agree to enter into negotiations within three (3) months f the execution of this Agreement and to f finalize an interlocal service boundary agreement within twelve (12) months thereafter, and if necessary, a longer timeframe shall be agree to by both Parties, which may create an agreement to address annexation and service d livery issues within the area identified in the County's initiating resolution (Resolution No. 0 -382). If the agreement is not completed within twelve (12) months and the Parties cannot a ree on a Ivnger timeframe, failure to complete the agreement shall not constitute a material reach of this Agreement. 5:\/1TTY\I16REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRdi~ Park B-L.wpd Page 9 of 15 C. The Parties agree that within three (3) months of the execution of this Agreement, they will negotiate a scope of services with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council or other acceptable entity which shall create a special planning study for the JPA depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" hereto. The study will be completed in twelve (12) months, and if necessary, a longer timeframe shall be agreed to by both Parties. The study will include, but not be limited to, infrastructure cost estimates, aesthetic improvements, and a determination of which Innd uses will be compatible and consistent with adjacent developments f~arlt-Ahcs#et-Wcrr. No consideration of land use changes by either party, unless mutually agreed upon, shall occur until the planning study is completed and mutually agreed upon. If the study is not completed within twelve (12) months and the Parties cannot agree on a longer timeframe, failure to complete the study shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement. The Parties shall implement the site design and architectural standards recommended by the study. The County and City shall pay their equal share for the cost of the study. D. Both the City and the County agree to respect each others land use compatibility principles in zoning petitions for any parcels within Potential Annexation Aren "A" and Area "6". The land use compatibility reviews referenced above shall include an evaluation of land use density, intensity, character or type of use proposed, and an evaluation of site and architectural mitigation design techniques. E. The Parties agree to cooperate on the preparation and implementation of any neighborhood or community plans within the areas subject to this Agreement. F. The Parties agree that in order to protect the limited, valuable natural and financial resources that exist within the region, development must proceed in a sustainable manner. Sustainability measures such as Green Building, Florida Green Building Standards and LEER Certification will be encouraged by both Parties for all new development. 6, The City and the County agree to coordinate and encourage economic development within the JPA and further agree, to the maximum extent possible, to offer qunlif ied applicants the same economic development incentives including but not limited to ad valorem tax incentives. 10. Other Rights and Agreements. A. Other Rights. Nothing in this Agreement precludes either the City or the County from exercising its rights pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to challenge any regional impact development order. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRbO Park B-L.wpd Page 10 of 15 B. Other Conter~pornneous Agreements. The Parties do not intend f r this Agreement to amend, modify, supersede, or terminate any other agreement between t e City and County in effect as of , 2009. The parties specifically agree th t this Agreement does not amend the utility service area boundaries set out in that ertain Interlocal Agreement dated February 10, 2004. 11. Notice to Parties. All notices, consents, approvals, waivers, and elections t t any Party requests or gives under this Agreement will be in writing and shall be given only b hand delivery for which a receipt is obtained, or certified mail, prepaid with confirms ion of delivery requested. Notices will be delivered or mailed to the addresses set forth b low or as either Party may otherwise designate in writing. If to the County: With a copy to: St. Lucie County St. Lucie County Attorney ATTN: County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 If to the City: With a copy to: City of Fort Pierce Fort Pierce City Attorney ATTN: City Manager Post Off ice Box 1480 Post Office Box 1480 Fort Pierce, Florid 34954 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954 Notices, consents, approvals, waivers, and elections wi I I be deemed given when re eived by the Party for whom intended. 12. Dischnrae. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the City and the County, and no ri ht or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of an third party. Nothing in this Agreement, either expressed or implied, is intended ors II be construed to confer upon or give any person, corporation or governmental entity othe than the parties any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement or any pro isions or conditions hereof, and al! of the provisions, representations, covenants, and con itions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the Parti and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement ay be 5:\ATTY\A6REEMNI'~INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Park B-L.wpd Page 11 f 15 relied upon by any current or future parcel owner in the JPA as creating any investment backed expectation of development rights for such parcels. 13. Validity of Agreement The City and the County each represent and warrant to the other its respective authority to enter into this Agreement, acknowledge the validity and enforceability of the Agreement, and waive any future right or defense based on a claim of illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of any nature. The City hereby represents, warrants and covenants to and with the County that this Agreement has been validly approved by the Fort Pierce City Commission at a public hearing of the Fort Pierce City Commission held pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.317(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes, that it has been fully executed and delivered by the City, that it constitutes a legal, valid and binding contract enforceable by the Parties in accordance with its terms, and that the enforceability hereof is not subject to any impairment by the applicability of any public policy or police powers. The County hereby represents, warrants and covenants to and with the City that this Agreement has been validly approved by ordinance of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing of the board held pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.317(3), and Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes, that it has been duly executed and delivered by the County, that it constitutes a legal, valid and binding contract enforceable by the Parties in accordance with its terms, and that the enforceability hereof is~not subject to any impairment by the applicability of any public policy or police powers. 14. Enforcement. Subject to Section 9 above, this Agreement shall be enforceable by the Parties hereto by whatever remedies are available in law or equity, including but not limited to injunctive relief and specific performance. 15. Covenant to Enforce. If this Agreement or any portion hereof is challenged by any judicial, administrative, or appellate proceeding (each Party hereby covenanting with the other Party not to initiate or acquiesce to such challenge or not to appeal any decision invalidating any portion of this Agreement except as otherwise provided in this Agreement), the Parties collectively an individually agree, at their individual sole cost and expense, to defend in good faith its validity through to a final judicial determination, unless both Parties mutually agree in writing not to defend such challenge or not to appeal any decision invalidating any portion of this Agreement. 16. Term. Review and Termination. A. Original Term. This Agreement shall take effect upon its f fling with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County and, unless amended or extended in accordance with its terms, shall expire on , 2029. 5:\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Park B-l.wpd Page 12 of 15 B. Extension. This Agreement shall be automatically extended past the o iginal term for one additional ten (10) year term unless either the City or the County, as th case may be, delivers a notice of non-renewal to the other Party at least one hundred eigh (180) days prior to the expiration of the original term of this Agreement. If it is extended for an additional ten (10) year term, this Agreement shall be automatically extended f r one additional f ive (5) year term~unless either the City or the County, as the case may be, d livers a notice of non-renewal to the other Party at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the ten (10) year extension. A Party delivering such a notice of non-ren wal as aforesaid may, in such Party's sole discretion, revoke such notice of non-renewal at time prior to the expiration date of the original term or any extended term of this Agre eat. C. Review. During the comprehensive plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report eview process required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, each Party will review the terms f this Agreement and consider amendments, as necessary. D. Alternate Term. If the iaw does not allow this Agreement to have th term set forth above, then the term shall be twenty (20) years or the maximum term of years allowed by law, whichever is greater, and at least eighteen (18) months before the exp ration of the twenty (20) year term the Parties agree to commence negotiations for a other interlocal agreement to govern the matters addressed in this Agreement. 17. Amendment. Amendments may be proffered by either Party at any time. Pr posed amendments shall be in writing and must be approved by a majority of the boards o both Parties. 18. bsequent Legislative Enactments. The Parties agree and covenant, having gi nand received valuable consideration for the promises and commitments made herein, it i their desire, intent and f irm agreement to be bound by and observe he terms of this Agr meat wherever such terms are more stringent than those subsequently enacted by the Legis ature. 19. Miscellaneous. A. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agr meat embodies and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the s b ject matters addressed herein, and all prior agreements, understandings, representatio s and statements, oral or written, are superseded by this Agreement. B. 6overnin4 Lnw and Venue. The laws of the State of Florida shall gove n this Agreement, and venue for any action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement sha I be in 5:\ATTY\I16REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRQ~D Park B-l..wpd Page 13 of 15 the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for St. Lucie County, Florida. C. Compliance with Chapter 171. Part II Florida Statutes The Parties agree that this Agreement also meets the requirements of Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes. 20. Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in ay situation in any jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or the validity or enforceability of the offending term or provision in any other situation or in any other jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chairman and affixed its off icial seal, attested by its Clerk pursuant to the Authorization of the Fort Pierce City Commission and St. Lucie County, Florida has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair and affixed its official seal, attested by its Clerk, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of County Commissioners on the day and year indicated below. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chair Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA ATTEST: BY: City Clerk Mayor 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Park B-L.wpd Page 14 of 15 Doted APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: City Attorney 5:\AT1Y\~6REEMNT~INTERLOC~FP-TCRdcO Park B-L.wpd Png6 I5 f 15 JOINT PLANNING AND INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY (TREASURE COAST RESEARCH ~ DEVELOPMENT PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS) This Joint Planning and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (the "Agreement" is made and entered into this day of , 2009, by and between the City of Fort Pierce, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City") and St. Lucie County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County"). WHEREAS, the City possesses Municipal Home Rule Powers pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(b), Florida Constitution and Section 166.021, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the County possesses Home Rule powers as anon-charter county. pursuant to Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, encourages and empowers local government to cooperate with one another on matters of mutual interest and advantage, and provides for interlocal agreements between local governments on matters such as annexation and joint planning; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Annexation or Contraction Act, Chapter 171, Part I, Florida Statutes, and the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act, Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes, recognizes the use of interlocal service boundary agreements and joint planning agreements as a means to coordinate future land use, public facilities and services, and protection of natural resources in advance of annexation; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, requires that counties and cities include in their respective planning efforts intergovernmental coordination and particularly, mechanisms for identifying and implementing joint planning areas, especially for the purpose of annexation; and 5.\TTY\~6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR&D Park.wpd Pnge 1 of 13 WHEREAS, the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to irect development to those areas which have in place the land and water resources, fiscal a ilities and service capacities to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable mann r; and WHEREAS, the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to prot t the substantial investment in public facilities that already exist and to plan for and finan a new facilities in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; and, WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to adequately plan and develop th area around the Treasure Coast Research and Development Park ("Research Park"), as depic ed on Composite Exhibit 'A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referent ,and surrounding areas, identify the appropriate land uses and transportation infrastructure needs and provider f or such Innds, ensure protection of natural resources, jointly develop ec nomic development initiatives including the identification of jobs corridors and agree on c rtain procedures for the timely review and processing of development proposals within those teas; and WHEREAS, the extension of City and County facilities and services to the R eorch Park and surrounding areas should be provided in prioritized phases. The process and iming of annexation and development review processes for certain designated areas of the Ci and County should be clearly identified and jointly coordinated in advance of the City and ounty capital planning, commitment, and expenditure; and ' WHEREAS, Subsection 163.3171(3), Florida Statutes, provides for the adop ion of joint planning agreements to allow counties and municipalities to exercise jointly the wets granted under the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City, after consultation with its sta ,has determined that the lands included in the Joint Planning Area described herein ay be necessary to reasonably accommodate urban growth projected in the City during the t rm of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City and the County find that the benefits of intergovern ental communications and coordination will accrue to both Parties; and WHEREAS, the elected officials of the City and the County have met and nego fated in good faith to resolve issues relating to annexation and joint planning of the areas surrounding the Research Park and wish to memorialize their understanding i this Agreement; and 5:\AT1Y\A6REEMNT\ZNTERLOC\FP-TCRbD Pnrk.wpd Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of Article VIII of the Florida Constitution, the City of Fort Pierce Charter, and Chapters 125,163, ib6-and 171, Florida Statutes (2008). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and the County agree as follows: . 1. Incorporation of Preamble. The Preamble above is true and correct and incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2. Establishment of Joint Planning Area. To establish the means and process by which future annexations and planning activities will be accomplished, the City and the County (the "Parties") hereby establish a Joint Planning Area (JPA), depicted in Composite Exhibit 'A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All areas specifically delineated, mapped and referenced in the legend on Composite Exhibit "A" are within the JPA. 3. Limitation on Future Annexations. A. Within the Joint Planning Area, the City and the County agree to the following criteria on annexation: 1. The City agrees not to annex any property within the Research Park. The County agrees not tv use as a basis for objecting to annexations adjacent to the Research Park the fact that the Research Park has not been annexed into the City and such adjacent properties are not contiguous to the City municipal boundaries pursuant to Part II of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. 2. The County is willing to discuss as part of negotiations on a broader interloca) service boundary agreement whether the areas outside the Research Park but inside the FPUA retail service area, designated on Composite Exhibit "A" as Potential Annexation Area "A", may be annexed by the City without the requirement of contiguity with City municipal boundaries. 3. Other areas outside the Research Park and outside the FPUA retail service area, designated on Composite Exhibit "A" as Area "B",are eligible for annexation by the City with the prior written consent of the County if they are within the Urban Service Boundary. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR&~ Pork.wpd Page 3 of 13 B. The City and the County agree to develop a schedule of annexat n for properties within Potential Annexation Aren'A"and Area "B"that consist of land like) to be developed for urban and economic development purposes under the term of this Agr ement and which are therefore appropriate for annexation by the City. C. The City and County agree that the City shall provide notice to the ounty within thirty (30) days of receipt of any petition to annex properties within the PA or initiation of nn annexation ordinance by the City. 4. Coun Consent to Annexatio o Potential Annexation Areas b the Ci If an annexation ordinance of the City is adopted under the conditions set forth in this Agre meat, the County will not challenge, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, such annexati ns by the City set forth in said annexation ordinance. 5, and U e In structure and nviro en nt A e eats or P tential Ann ation Arens. Process or Inco rati Potential Annexa io Areas into Ci Co hensiv Plan. Future land uses are identified herein and agreed to by the City and the County for ch of the areas within Potential Annexation Area "A" and Area "B". These future land uses ill be examined during the City's comprehensive plan update pursuant to the Evaluati n and Appraisal Report. During the process to update the City's comprehensive plan, the Ci and County will agree on future land use categories and design guidelines for the specifi lands in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Area "B". The City will adopt the agreed to futu a Innd uses as nn overlay to its comprehensive plan. Specific policies addressing allocati ns of acreage, density, and intensity of development shall be included for each future la d use category. Once in effect, the overlay will serve to govern any future land us map amendments occurring after annexation. Prior to annexation, the County will not re se its future land uses to redesignate any parcels in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Area "B" to a use incompatible with the designations set forth in this Agreement or the overlay. 6. Intergovernmental Review and Coordination A. Coordination of developments of Ext%jurisdictional Impact. The Ci and the County agree that the impacts of certain development, herein referred to ns "Developments of Extrgjurisdictional Impacts," in close proximity to the boundaries f the Research Park, whether within the City limits or in the unincorporated area of the unty, require that the Parties closely coordinate such developments in order to assure the o derly and efficient provision of public facilities and services and compatibility of land uses 5-\nrn\n6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR&~ Park.wpd Page 4 of 13 B. Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact defined Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact shall have meaning: Any development within the Joint Planning Area set forth on Composite Exhibit "A". C. Coordination of County Plnnnino Activity The County will give the City Planning Director, or designee, written notice of the following matters or applications that relate to Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact located within the unincorporated area of the County depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" which matters or applications include but are not limited to: (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (2) Rezonings; (3) Conditional uses/Special Exceptions; (4) Planned Unit Developments; or (5) Site Plans D. Development Proposals within the City's Jurisdiction The City will give the County Growth Management Director, or his designee, written notice of matters or applications that relate to Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact located within the municipal boundaries of the City depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" which matters or applications include but are not limited to: (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (2) Rezonings; (3) Conditional Uses/Specia) Exceptions; (4) Planned Unit Developments; or (5) Site Plans E. Process for Coordination of Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact The Parties will adhere to the following process in order to facilitate intergovernmental coordination regarding Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact: ~(1) Not later than thirty (30) days after receiving an application, and in no event less than thirty (30) days prior to any public hearing on n proposed Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact, the Party with approval authority (the "Approving Party") will transmit the application packet for the proposed development, including all back-up material, to the other Party (the "Reviewing Party"). o. The Approving Party will.transmit any substantive changes to the application packet made during the review process to the Reviewing Party within five (5) 5:\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6~ Park.wpd Page 5 of 13 business days of its receipt by the Approving Party and in no event less than thirty (3 )days prior to any public hearing. b. The Reviewing Party will transmit comments within twen (20) working days of receipt of the item(s) listed in subparagraphs C.1, 2, or 3 or D.1. 2 or 3, above. If the Reviewing Party does not respond in writing within twenty (20) workin days, then it is deemed to have no recommended conditions for inclusion in the comprehensi a plan amendment, rezoning, special exception or development concept plan. c. The parties agree to take reasonable steps to facility a the review process set forth herein. (Z) Agreement to Incorporate Conditions. a. The City's recommendation to the City Planning and oning Advisory Board and City Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a pr posed Development of Extra jurisdictional Impact wi II set forth all County-proposed stipulatio s that are based on adopted County standards, neighborhood and community plans, in ustry standards, or common agreement between the City and County. b. The County's recommendation to the County Planning b oning Commission and County Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a pr posed Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact will set forth all City-proposed stipulatio that are based on adopted City standards, neighborhood and community plans, industry Stan ards, or common agreement between the City and County. F. Apurovnl of Reviewing Party Not Required. Notwithstanding the pro isions set forth in Section 6.E.(Z) hereof, unless otherwise specified herein in Paragraphs 5 d 9, the Parties will not construe any provision of this Agreement to require: (1) City approval of the County's planning activities or of Developme is of Extrajurisdictionnl Impact within the unincorporated area of the County; or (Z) County approval of the City's planning activities or of Developme is of Extrajurisdictional Impact within municipal boundaries of the City. G. Coordination bf Further Planning Efforts in the JPA. The City a d the County agree to coordinate further long range planning efforts and studies within th JPA. This coordination includes, but is not necessarily limited to (a) implementation of the P nned Nonresidential Development overlay district within the Research Park; (b) implements ion of 5.\ATTY\~l6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR4D Parkwpd Page 6 f 13 a Transportation concurrenry Management Area for Kings Highway; (c) a design chnrette for the parcels in Potential Annexation Aren "A" and Area "B". 7. Incorporation into Comprehensive Plans. No Inter than the next City EAR plan amendments, the Parties will incorporate into the Future Land Use, Transportation, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, and as necessary other Elements of their respective Comprehensive Plans the provisions of this Agreement as is necessary to effectuate the intent of the Agreement and the obligations assumed by each of the Parties. As necessary, within one year of adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments, the Parties wi II amend their Land Development Codes. 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution. The parties agree to resolve any dispute related to the interpretation or performance of this Agreement in the manner described in Chapter 164, Florida Statutes. 9. Agreement on Additional Substantive Standards and Issues. In addition to the matters set forth above, the Parties agree to the following additional substantive standards and issues: A. Each party agrees that as a part of its review of development applications wi#hin the JPA set forth in Composite Exliibit'A" that it will apply its own comprehensive plan policies, land development regulations and methodologies to assess the impacts on the public facilities for which it .is financially responsible. In addition, any application in which concurrenry is determined will be provided to the other party which will conduct a concurrenry review based on its comprehensive plan policies, land development regulations and methodologies to address impacts to public facilities which are its financial responsibility. Any concurrenry approval will incorporate the results of reviews by both Parties. B. The Parties agree to enter into negotiations within three (3) months of the execution of this Agreement and to finalize an interlocnl service boundary agreement within twelve (12) months thereafter, and if necessary, a longer timefrnme shall be agreed to by both Parties, which may create an agreement to address annexation and service delivery issues within the area identified in the County's initiating resolution (Resolution No. 08-382). If the agreement is not completed within twelve (12) months and the Parties cannot agree on a longer timef tame, failure to complete the agreement shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement. C. The Parties agree that within three (3) months of the execution of this Agreement, they wi II negotiate a scope of services with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning 5:\ATTY\A6REEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR4D Park.wpd Page 7 of 13 Council or other acceptable entity which shall create a special planning study fort a JPA depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" hereto. The study will be completed in twelve (12) oaths, and if necessary, a longer timeframe shall be agreed to by both Parties. The st y will include, but not be limited to, infrastructure cost estimates, aesthetic improvement ,and a determination of which land uses will be compatible and consistent with a jacent developments. No consideration of land use changes by either party, unless mutually greed upon, shall occur until the planning study is completed and mutually agreed upon. If th study is not completed within twelve (12) months and the Parties cannot agree on a longer timeframe, failure to complete the study shall not constitute a material breach f this Agreement. The Parties shall implement the site design and architectural st Bards recommended by the study. The County and City shall pay their equal share for the ost of the study. D. Both the City and the County agree to respect each others I d use compatibility principles in zoning petitions for any parcels within Potential Annexatio Area 'A" and Area "B". The land use compatibility reviews referenced above shall incl de an evaluation of land use density, intensity, character or type of use proposed, and an eva nation of site and archi#ectural mitigation design techniques. E. The Parties agree to cooperate an the preparation and implementation of any neighborhood or community plans within the areas subject to this Agreement. F. The Parties agree that in order to protect the limited, valuable natu al and financial resources that exist, within the region, development must proceed in a Bust finable manner. Sustainabi lity measures such as Green Building, Florida Green Building Standa ds and GEED Certification will be encouraged by both Parties for all new development. G. The City and the County agree to coordinate and encourage ec nomic development within the JPA and further agree, to the maximum extent possible, to offer qualified applicants the same economic development incentives including but not limite toad valorem tax incentives. 10. Other Rights and Agreements. A. Other Rights. Nothing in this Agreement precludes either the City r the County from exercising its rights pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to challe a any regional impact development order. B. Other Contemporaneous Agreements. The Parties do not intend f r this Agreement to amend, modify, supersede, or terminate any other agreement between t e City 5.\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERl.OC\FP-TCR~CD Park.wpd Page 8 of 13 and County in effect as of , 2009. The parties specifically agree that this Agreement does not amend the utility service area boundaries set out in that certain Interlocal Agreement dated February 10, 2004. 11. Notice to Parties. All notices, consents, approvals, waivers, and elections that any Party requests or gives under this Agreement will be in writing and shall be given only by hand delivery for which a receipt is obtained, or certified mail, prepaid with confirmation of delivery requested. Notices will be delivered or mailed to the addresses set forth below or as either Party may otherwise designate in writing. If to the County: With a copy to: St. Lucie County St. Lucie County Attorney ATTN: County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 If to the City: With a copy to: City of Fort Pierce Fort Pierce City Attorney ATTN: City Manager Post Office Box 1480 Post Office Box 1480 Fort Pierce, Florid 34954 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954 Notices, consents, approvals, waivers, and elections will be deemed given when received by the Party for whom intended. 12. Discharoe. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the City and the County, and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party. Nothing in this Agreement, either expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person, corporation or governmental entity other than the parties any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof, and all of the provisions, representations, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement may be relied upon by any current or future parcel owner in the JPA as creating any investment backed expectation of development rights for such parcels. 5:\ATTY\A6REEMN7\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Pnrk.wpd Page 9 of 13 13. VnliditX of Aareeme~t. The City and the County each represent and warran to the other its respective authority to enter into this Agreement, acknowledge the vali ity and enforceability of the Agreement, and waive any future right or defense based on a (aim of illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of any nature. The City hereby represents, w rrants and covenants to and with the County that this Agreement has been validly approved by the Fort Pierce City Commission at n public hearing of the Fort Pierce City Commissi n held pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.317(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 171, art II, Florida Statutes, that it has been fully executed and delivered by the City, hat it constitutes a legal, valid and binding contract enforceable by the Parties in accordan a with its terms, and that the enforceability hereof is not subject to any impairment y the applicability of any public policy or police powers. The County hereby represents, w rrants and covenants to and with the City that this Agreement has been validly appro ed by ordinance of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners at n public hearin of the Board held pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.317(3}, and Chapter 171, Part II, lorida Statutes, that it has been duly executed and delivered by the County, that it consti utes a legal, valid and binding contract enforceable by the Parties in accordance with its ter s, and that the enforceability hereof is not subject to any impairment by the applicability of any public polity or police powers. 14. Enforcement. Subject to Section 9 above, this Agreement.shal) be enforce ble by the Parties hereto by whatever remedies are available in law or equity, including ut not limited to injunctive relief and specific performance. 15. Covenant to Enforce. If this Agreement or any portion hereof is challenged by any judicial, administrative, or appellate proceeding (each Party hereby covenanting w th the other Party not to initiate or acquiesce to such challenge or not to appeal any d cision invalidating any portion of this Agreement except as otherwise provided in this Agre meat), the Parties collectively an individually agree, at their individual sole cost and expe se, to defend in good faith its validity through to n final judicial determination, unless both artier mutually agree in writing not to defend such challenge or not to appeal any d cision invalidating any portion of this Agreement. 16. Term, Review and Terminotion. A. Original Term. This Agreement shall take effect upon its filing with th Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County and, unless amended or extended in accordan a with its terms, shall expire on , 2029. B. Extension. This Agreement shall be automatically extended past the riginal term for one additional ten (10) year term unless either the City or the County, as t e case 5:\IITTY\~GREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR4D Pnrk.wpd Page 1 Of 13 may be, delivers a notice of non-renewal to the other Party at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the origins) term of this Agreement. If it is extended for an additional ten (10) year term, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for one additional five (5) year term unless either the City or the County, as the case may be, delivers a notice of non-renewal to the other Party at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the ten (10) year extension. A Party delivering such a notice of non-renewal as aforesaid may, in such Party's sole discretion, revoke such notice of non-renewal at any time prior to the expiration date of the original term or any extended term of this Agreement. C. Review. During the comprehensive plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report review process required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, each Party will review the terms of this Agreement and consider amendments, as necessary. D. Alternate Term. If the law does not allow this Agreement to have the term set forth above, then the term shall be twenty (20) years or the maximum term of years allowed by law, whichever is greater, and at least eighteen (18) months before the expiration of the twenty (20) year term the Parties agree to commence negotiations for another interlocsl agreement to govern the matters addressed in this Agreement. 17. Amendments Amendments may be proffered by either Party at any time. Proposed amendments shall be in writing and must be approved by a ma jority of the boards of both Parties. 18. Subsequent Lec,~islative Enactments. The Parties agree and covenant, having given and received valuable consideration for the promises and commitments made herein, it is their desire, intent and firm agreement to be bound by and observe he terms of this Agreement wherever such terms are more stringent than those subsequently enacted by the Legislature. 19. Miscellaneous. A. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agreement embodies and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matters addressed herein, and all prior agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are superseded by this Agreement. B. Governing Lnw and Venue. The laws of the State of Florida shall govern this Agreement, and venue for any action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for St. Lucie County, Florida. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Park.wpd Page 11 of 13 C. Compliance with Chapter 171. Part II. Florida Statutes. The Parti agree that this Agreement also meets the requirements of Chapter 171, Part II, Florida St tutes. 20. Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenfo cenble in ay situation in any jurisdiction sholl not affect the validity or enforceability f the remaining terms and provisions hereof or the validity or enforceability of the offendi g term or provision in any other situation or in any other jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, has caus d this Agreement to be executed by its Chairman and affixed its official seal, attested by it Clerk pursuant to the Authorization of the Fort Pierce City Commission and St. Lucie ounty, Florida has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair and affixed its offici I seal, attested by its Clerk, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of County Commis loners on the day and year indicated below. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI NERS ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chair Dated: APPROVED A5 TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORID ATTEST: BY: City Clerk Mayor Dated: 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRdcD Park.wpd Page 12 of 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS : 6Y: City Attorney 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Park.wpd Pnge 13 of 13 Shinn Rd M - 0 V 1 - y.._.-- _ Q. - . - , . . . ~ ~ ~ , I ~ ,y _ /~~//~1 7. Y' ~ , in tx ~ j' ~ n~W`T~`+",+~.~,~~. Syr r~ ~ / ~ / k.. .Ki f~ ~ ~ ~ ' / L... . - f ~ : ' _ ,H . / ~ Wiz'- Y / 1 / / , i ~ ~ ~ is ~ [ _.t: ,~y ! ~ ! r , _ _ , , ,r ~ trr- .ti/ _ ~~TTT_-f.-,~ ~ '-4-~''L -'~Z'-'s'~~i,,,,, 7?1r j.-: I ~ © a ~ .A... 0 lS ~ , ~ ~ s ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 3 n' ~Q D ~ ~ cD Fort Pierce Farms Water Control District 14666 Orange Avenue Ext, FL Pierce, Florida 34945 Board of Supervisors: Philip C. "Flip" Gates, Jr.; Robert Johnson; Steve Cassens February 21, 2009 Faye Outlaw County Administrator Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Dear Ms. Outlaw: As president of the Fort Pierce Farms Water Management District, I am requesting you schedule before the County Commission the following request: 1. Extension of Life of Fort Pierce Farms Water Control District This request is needed for the continuation of the FPFWCD; activities, including: a. Repair of canal damage, as a result of Tropical Storm Faye. b. Implementation of the NC's Flow way Concept Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Philip C. "Flip" Gates, Jr. President ITEM N0.6 ~ ~ ~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ~ PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Kara Wood, TVC Planning Manager THROUGH: Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Direct6~ DATE: May 12, 2009 SUBJECT: Smart Growth Committee Draft Recommendations for discussion and comment May 26, 2009 BOCC Informal Meeting The Smart Growth Advisory Ad Hoc Committee was established by Resolution 05-435 on November 22, 2005 "for the purpose of advising the Board of County Commissioners on matters relating to codes and regulations that currently preclude Smart Growth Policies.° The Committee has worked diligently over the last few years in the review of draft regulations the County has initiated, including the Towns, Villages and Countryside (T'VC) Land Development Regulations, revised parking standards in Chapter 7, and the Jenkins Road Planning Area. After considering a wide range of issues over the last few years, the Committee has comprised a list of recommendations for the Board of County Commissioners' consideration that they believe would greatly support St. Lucie County in the implementation of sustainable development. Enclosed are draft recommendations from the Smart Growth Committee to date, as well as two presentations heard by the Committee on possible strategies for implementation. The Committee expressed the desire to present these to the Board for discussion and initial feedback prior to finalizing the document for acceptance at a regular meeting. As this document is a work in progress, the Committee hopes that the Board members will take this opportunity to provide comment on any of the issues contained in the draft document. ITEM N0.7 ~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ~ PLANNING DIVISION - MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Smart Growth Committee Members THROUGH: Kara Wood, Planning Manager Mark Satterlee, Growth Managem nt Direct DATE: May 12, 2009 SUBJECT: Smart Growth Draft Recommendations Per Resolution 05-435 establishing the Smart Growth Advisory Ad Hoc Committee and its charge to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), the following recommendations are presented for your consideration. The fundamental basis for these recommendations comes from A Recommended Comprehensive Smart Growth Audit Checklist, an appendix to the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service Report No. 512. The Committee decided to focus primarily on achieving urban form for compact, mixed-use urban development that leads to greater sustainability than patterns that reflect predominantly single-use suburban development on the fringe of existing areas. Topics that have been eliminated from the Smart Growth Audit Checklist and not condensed into other categories include Jobs-Housing Balance, Energy Conservation, Water Quality, Air Quality, Water and Sewer, and Regionalism and Intergovernmental Relations. The assumption was that other committees, such as Environmental Advisory and Affordable Housing, were reviewing these issues with greater specificity. The Committee understands that some of these issues have already been raised and included in the EAR; it is believed that these more specific recommendations, where they apply to the Comprehensive Plan, can simply be incorporated into the EAR-based amendments. The recommendations in this document are intended to be considered as a whole, as many individual policies advised for revision or consideration are dependent upon other aspects of smart growth being addressed concurrently. As a point of departure, the Committee often referenced the form-based aspects of the TVC land development regulations as a model for specific ideas offered. A number of the recommendations on urban form could look to the TVC code as a method of implementation. For greater ease of review, the recommendations below have been divided into three sections: 1. Executive Summary: a concise and categorized matrix of the recommendations 2. Detailed List: all policies and regulations that the Committee is recommending for revisions 3. Implementation: suggestions for ways to get from policy to reality May 12, 2009 SMART GROVYTH DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Smart Growth Committee Page 2 of ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary presents a more concise format of the Committee's list of recommended modifications to regulatory documents. The summary has been formulated into a matrix that consolidates the primary issues the Committee was interested in considering, categorizes each task based on the relative regulatory document, and connects each with the major topics from the more detailed recommendations. ~ m a~ cmw me ~ ~ v Y C O r.+ D o C9 G aii ti J O t/~ a F- .1p+ Com rehensive Plan 1. Require needs-based analysis for land use amendments X X outside USB. 2. Stren then land-use olicies favorin infill develo ment. X X X X 3. Confirm/ strengthen land use policies to reclaim/reuse obsolete X X sites or brownfiefds. 4. Encourage minimum densities in appropriate areas: 8 to 15 X X X X units r acre, hi her in urban centers. 5. Strengthen land use policies to ensure future development X X X X occurs in com act form. 6. Consider some portion of land outside USB be identified as fringe and exclusively agricultural or conservation to prevent X X X X unlimited develo ment of sin le-famil tract housin 7. Create additional land use designations for mixed-use X X X X develo ment. 8. Confirm/create plan policies to encourage a mix of land uses at X X X X the buildin ,site, and nei hborhood levels. 9. Address long range needs for roads, sidewalks, bicycle paths, X X transit, frei ht movement, and water and air travel. 10. Provide for maintenance of current roads and existing X X trans rtation s stems before s endin mone on new ones. 11. Require interconnected local streets for new development and X X u ated network in ROW rotection ma . 12. Revise street standards to reduce excessive right-of-way and X X X avement widths. Land Develo ment Code 1. Encoura a infill develo ment with ex edited review rocess X X 2. Encoura a minimum densities in a ro riate areas X X X X 3. Revise parking regulations to ensure reduction of excessive parking; provide maximum parking ratios, reductions for shared parking in mixed-use projects and where transit is available, X X X X encourage or require on-street parking in appropriate areas, and allow orous avements where a ro riate. 4. Require a wide range of housing types to meet needs of various demographics; permit accessory units within single-family lots, X and allow minimum lot sizes a ro riate to urban areas. 5. Strengthen and supplement land development regulations for X X zonin districts to allow a mix of uses. 6. Strengthen zoning ordinance to encourage/require X X X formltransect-based develo ment. 7. Require development in all zoning districts to provide minimum open space ratio as appropriate to location and intensity of land X X use. ' May 12, 2009 SMART GROWTH DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Smart Growth Committee Page 3 of 6 m p t c ~ aii o L ~ m~ ~ c at° ~ 0 ot9 o~tfu°.. ~ Ov°ia t=:°. 8. Require connectivity of open spaces and greenways to existing X X destinations and other o n s ace areas. 9. Encourage accessibility to public open space to all or most X X residents of the communi within a certain minimum distance. 10. Create land development regulations that provide for "conservation subdivisions" or "cluster subdivisions" as a matter X X of ri ht. 11. Require, where appropriate, development to provide new local X X streets at desi Hated intervals e. eve 1,500 feet . 12. Revise street standards to reduce excessive right-of-way and X X avement widths. 13. Require sidewalks/pedestrian paths within all new residential X and commercial develo ment as a ro riate to transect. 14. Require connection of new streets to existing streets and stubbing of streets or driveways to allow connection to future X develo ment. 15. Create land-use regulations that are "transit-friendly" or "transit X X X X su rtive". 16. Revise regulations to require various disciplines within the site design profession (i.e. architects, landscape architects, X engineers, land planners) to coordinate in achieving superior site desi n. 17. Consider regulations for buildings on sites with low ground elevations to utilize elevated construction techniques rather than X onl site fill. Data ~ Anal sis 1. Develop land use analysis for potential infill in acres and units based on realistic redevelopment opportunities as well as X X existin /a roved vs. ro~ected demand. DETAILED LIST The following list is intended to outline areas of revision the Committee feels area needed in the regulatory documents. 1. Direction of Growth (Inward, Not Outward) a. Strengthen land use policies and land development regulations to favor "inward direction of growth° (infill development) and encourage development within existing urban areas as opposed to promoting new development on the fringe of developed areas. b. Develop land use analysis to identify location and amount of potential infill development. New development capacity should account for existing and approved units/acreage/square footage versus projected demand. Potential redevelopment areas should include sites that 1) underutilize development available in Future Land Use, 2) are appropriate for greater urban intensity, and 3) where maximum build-out would not be inconsistent with surrounding properties. c. Confirm and/or strengthen any land-use policies recognizing the need to reclaim and reuse any temporarily, obsolete, abandoned or derelict sites (TOADs) and to clean up and reclaim for future use any "brownfields°. May 12, 2009 SMART GROWTH DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Smart Growth Committee page 4 of 6 d. Confirm and strengthen (or create if necessary) land use regulations that discourage development within, and the filling of, floodways and floodplains. At a minimum, local regulations should be compliant with those at the state and federal level. e. Consider adopting land use policies and land development regulations that encourage the establishment of minimum (not just maximum) densities to promote the efficient use of lands. f. Analyze developed residential densities and how they relate to planned densities and densities permitted by zoning districts to assist in determining if density allowances in the land use plan and zoning district have been underutilized. g. Develop County-wide TDR program based on results of potential versus projected development. h. Establish transportation concurrency exception areas within urban service boundary where appropriate to incentivize infill development. i. Consider and develop location based transportation impact fees for mainland to take into consideration greater travel distance for sprawl. 2. Density and Urban Form a. Plan for and zone at least a portion of the residential land for densities between 8 and 15 dwelling units per acre, with even higher densities provided for in urban centers. b. Provide incentives and otherwise strengthen the land use plan so that a sequential, phased pattern of future development in areas contiguous to developed areas is encouraged. c. Through the EAR implementation process regarding the western lands study, consider whether regulations should identify much of the fringe land as exclusively agricultural (i.e., a holding category) or with a substantial minimum lot size that discourages single-family tract housing and preserves large sites for viable farm use. The result of the study should provide a menu of options for the future of agricultural land. d. Review and revise parking regulations to ensure reduction of excessive parking by providing maximum parking ratios, provide reductions for shared parking in mixed-use projects and where transit is available, encourage or require on-street parking in appropriate areas, and allow porous pavements where appropriate. e. Confirm that development regulations require a wide range of housing types to meet needs of various demographics, that accessory units are permitted within single-family lots, and that minimum lot sizes are appropriate to urban areas. f. Consider strengthening the local zoning ordinance to provide for traditional neighborhood development (TND). g. Require that finished floor elevations higher than the established flood plain be met through elevated construction techniques rather than only filling the surrounding site. h. Identify areas or locations for transit hubs for planning of efficient mass transit. 1) Develop future land use designations or overlay areas to encourage greater densities in proximity to transit hubs. 2) Establish public in#rastructure such as parking garages and transit facilities to support mass transit needs. 3) Develop infrastructure funding mechanisms through impact fees, Special Assessment Programs or CRA-type programs. ' May 12', 2009 SMART GROWTH DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Smart Growth Committee Page 5 of 6 3. Land Use a. Create additional land use designation areas, where appropriate, for mixed-use development. One example of this would be the adoption of a Neighbofioods and Districts Future Land Use to allow for smaller increments of property to develop according to compact, mixed-use principles. b. Strengthen plan policies to create additional opportunities for and encourage the mixing of land uses at the building, site, and neighborhood levels. At a minimum, regulations should allow for some percentage of residential units within commercial land uses, as well as some commercial development in high density residential areas. c. Strengthen and create zoning ordinances that provide at least one or more zoning districts that allow mixes of residential and commercial uses. d. Strengthen or create future land use plan and zoning ordinances allowing for compatible, small-scale neighborhood commercial uses (e.g., corner stores) adjacent to or within residential neighborhoods. e. Consider occupation regulations flexible enough to allow a wide variety of telework activities while maintaining the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods in which they are located. f. Strengthen procedural elements of land development regulations to require that various disciplines within the site design profession coordinate to achieve superior site design, including but not limited to urban design, engineering, environmental preservation, landscape architecture, transportation and stormwater management. 4. Open Space and Parks a. Strengthen goals, policies, and implementation measures to set aside a certain percentage of total land area in the community as open space or green space. b. Require that development in all (or most) zoning districts provide a minimum open space ratio as appropriate to location and intensity of land use. Encourage accessibility to public open space to all or most residents of the community within a certain minimum distance. c. Strengthen land use regulations to require developers to connect open spaces and greenways to existing destinations and open space reservations. d. Develop a clear definition of open space in which public parks and private open space are clearly described. Encourage the development of pocket parks and, if appropriate, larger community green space in residential projects. e. Create land use regulations that provide for "conservation subdivisions" or "cluster subdivisions" as a matter of right versus requiring a change in zoning district. Create standards for site organization and building form to guide this "by right" development. 6. Transportation a. Confirm (and strengthen or create if necessary) that the comprehensive plan transportation element addresses long range needs for roads, sidewalks, bicycle paths, transit, freight movement, and water and air travel (where appropriate). b. Confirm that local transportation policies provide for the maintenance of current roads and existing transportation systems before spending money on new ones. c. Include transportation policies that provide for local street networks (as opposed to the conventional hierarchical system of arterials, collectors, and local streets). New local streets May 12, 2009 SMART GROWTH DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Smart Growth Committee Rage 6 of.6 should be provided at designated intervals that encourage walkability and a variety of options for automobile trip routes. d. Create provisions in the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to provide for an analysis of local street standards and recommendations for reducing excessive right- of-way and pavement widths. e. Require sidewalks/pedestrian paths within all new residential and commercial development as appropriate to the general transect of the subject area. f. Confirm and strengthen (or create if necessary) subdivision regulations to allow the planning commission or local governing body to require the connection of subdivision streets to existing streets and the stubbing of streets to allow connections to future subdivision developments. g. Confirm and strengthen (or create if necessary) land use regulations that encourage, if not mandate, the provision of inter-parcel connections between individual developments, where compatible. h. Create land development regulations that are "transit-friendly" or "transit supportive". These types of development will require minimum densities to support transit near a center of urban activity. i. Update right-of-way protection map to address local street network connectivity. IMPLEMENTATION The Committee considered a number of existing documents that would serve to implement the outlined areas within the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Such actions for implementation might include: ? Encourage or incentivize standards for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or FGBC (Florida Green Building Coalition) certification that address efficiency of the complete building envelope, as well as site and neighborhood design. ? Adopt a SmartCode or other form-based code to regulate urban design either as a requirement or as an incentive. ? Adopt a Neighborhoods and Districts Element Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow for mixed-use development at smaller increments of land. ? Amend the existing Land Development Code to rectify present impediments to Smart Growth and make it easier to "do the right thing." In addition to new regulatory provisions, these amendments might include revisions to the following chapters of the Code as consistent with smart growth principles identified in these recommendations: 1. Chapter 3: Review and revise permitted, conditional and accessory uses in all zoning districts as appropriate. 2. Chapter 4: Develop and adopt overlay zones similar to TVC. 3. Chapter 5: Explore alternatives to standard concurrency practices. 4. Chapter 7: Review and revise 1) uses and design standards for planned development districts, 2) area, yard, height and open space requirements, and 3) transportation systems to include street sections with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 5. Chapter 8: Review and revise home occupations to allow greater range of home employment. The Committee has not endorsed one specific methodology for this implementation, preferring instead to leave this determination to Growth Management staff and the Board of County Commissioners. In closing, the Smart Growth Committee would like to thank the Board for the opportunity to participate in making recommendations that will further the intent of growth management documents toward sustainable development. Smart Growth Committee February 27, 2009 Presentation Summary • Examples of projects built according to form-based principles • Application of infill projects and form- based principles to existing neighborhoods • Review of SmartCode as a template for form-based code and regional scale plans Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 2 1 1 I. Seaside, FL • 80 acres • Mixed-Use Resort Village •489 Units •95,630 SF Commercial { 1' y ~ ~ ~ • 7.5 du/acre gross ~..`~~,r~v~ ' C ~ • 10-20 du/acre net ut m ~ ~'~i fir, ~ ~ ~/~~t~ t ~9, Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 3 Seaside, FL . bi e n ~~II~~~ i ~ ' ,~li~ty ~ II 1111~~~... 'C~` :I.~: II II 'I Ila,:. 11. JIII q 111h ~'-~~i a li iin~~,-- ,y .c ` ~ Derr" n: iei, - i.. ~ urn no~,6 UP Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 4 2 Seaside, FL 4'bk rv ~ - , Ta ' - t t~%v'e r 31 ~ Ilt .1?A,.. i ~ .i Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 5 Seaside, FL . ~ - : ~I s - -ate:.,., , r ~,~~~7 ' ~ ~a~ - .fit ~ Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 6 3 Seaside, FL . ~ aan. ~~a:'. - ~ ~i _ . Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 7 I' On, South Carolina i C` . 243 acres ~ , y,fa Mixed-Use Greenfield Villages ~ ~ ~ 769 SF Units + Live/Work ~ " ; 3.8 du/acre gross ' 3 ~9 du/ac net? ncfii .~a Hx~ii` r i. ~ a ' ~ , * i :v ~e n5~ ~ w.x u ~ - - ~ A ,l Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 8 4 I'On: water-based transect 'l~~ ~ t, i ~ I lF ~ ..n'~ r i $ I ~ •i.~~:~: y 1 W ~ , T. x` 36 ,roe ~71~l:! _ sir ~ ~ ~x ~ '4 x, ,j~ia~~'d e~ r~~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~~.1 ~ x~ - y f ~ (•~~'3~'.v %~J":'( Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 9 I I' On: land-based transect .r ~ 4. iYY%~H R(h a 'J, ~ ~ _ _ IIUIu i e ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~i ~ ~ i ? ~ ~,s - ~ i Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 10 5 Hammond's Ferry, SC •200 acres • Mixed-Use _ , ~ • 1,000+ Units w ~ •200K SF Commercial •5 du/acre gross i .rim + ry k . ~1Y . ~ , ~ Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 11 Hammond's Ferry ~-~~~wN~ ~ 8~~ ii , 'In d ` ~ ' 1~~ ~ • . - CIS: 1 ~ t L~ r ~ s ii n w~'~ ~ ~ \ '4'~'U ~ ~ - _ ~ ~itr~y~ ~~~s~: ~ dd ~ ~w 4 - ,r- ~ ~ ~.„w~ Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 12 6 Abacoa, Jupiter • 2,050 acres " ~ ;g`~_._ •Mixed-Use Greenfield i Villages & Town ' ~ ' ~ em 1 *-.-~1 x • 6,325 Units _ } ~l ~ •5.7-17.6 du/acre net .w~i r w''`ay ~i ~ --ij q I`;~ t i' 'I Y~e~ Ii..i~ E s ~ Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 13 Abacoa, Jupiter - ~ ~ , ~ 1 R ~ 4_~ ~~F ~ - ...t;~,e ~ ~ ~1` ` _ , . Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 14 7 . Local Infill Renaissance on the River i' - wtMr:~,- _u-_, , IC ~ qµ. 8 111 11111 s 1~1 ~~~'(~~m Kd®~~1 ~1 J u ~~i O: X11 _ F Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 15 Local Infill The Oaks at Moore's Creek ~ s 1 _ - - - ~ YR.'t - e Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 16 8 . . 1 SmartCode -Not Zoning TABLE 1. iRANSECT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS SMARTCODE •SmartCode emphasis is place-based rather than use- ~~r" - based • Regulatory function is primarily on form; use is ~,r~. determined by intensity • Presentation is primarily graphic and text is use to w,._ ,>w further explain specifics •All design-related issues are - combined -building form, _.o_ architecture, landscape, street ~tr;~ ~ sections -within any given , section. ,,..,W... M.~._ Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 17 SmartCode -Use by Intensity SMANTCODE TABLE I2 SPECIFIC fUNCTIDN 8l1SE 'r~~.'..,, ~ ~ •After general intensity areas ~`~-`ter are established in the Transect _ zones, a matrix outlines in one ~~r,T,-rte glance uses permitted in each T-,--r-r~ area. ~T •Commercial may be ~ appropriate in dense ~T residential areas, but not in suburban or rural. This matrix establishes those guidelines. ~ Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 18 9 , SmartCode -Streets by Intensity SMARTCODE _ TABLF 7R VEHICULAR LANEBPARKING ASSEMBLIES ~~•.w,,._,~~,,.m..__..e._...~,~_......„~~~ •Another matrix outlines in one glance street types permitted .Y... ~.y~ in each area. a~ - - r,~ • While wider roads with higher . travel speeds might be appropriate in rural or suburban areas, skinny streets ~ with narrow travel lanes and ~ - - - on-street parking is great for mixed-use downtowns. a ~ N Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 19 SmartCode -Public Frontage TABLE dA. PUBLIC FRONTAGES GENERAL SMARTCGDE ~R,om,.~~ ,...~M~.Fl...,,...,, ~ .,Ma...~~„ •Once design themes are established that are mcal~b'. appropriate for each Transect zone, the code regulates what happens along the public ~i`~"1 m ROW according to street type. ,~_,,,,,_,n „,~,a„a__„~,~_~,,, ~ • Larger setbacks for rural areas ~ are appropriate, just as _ building to the street edge is i~'~ healthy for urban areas. .,~,~........~~.w..,. Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 20 10 1 SmartCode: Regional Scale (O-1) Preserved Open Sector (O-2) Reserved Open Sector (G-1) Restricted Growth Sector (G-2) Controlled Growth Sector (G-3) Intended Growth Sector (G-4) Infill Growth Sector (SD) Special Districts Just as a large mixed-use development would range in density and intensity from a commercial core to large-lot single-family homes, Regional Scale Plans range from rural lands preserved in perpetuity to areas where growth is strongly encouraged. Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 21 I SmartCode: Optional Modules • Environmental • Architectural • Natural Drainage Systems, Light Imprint Storm Drainage • Wind Power, Solar Energy, Food Production, Recycling & Composting Lighting, Sound, Visitability • Hazard Mitigation Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 22 11 I. Summary • The SmartCode is just one example of a form- based code. • The advantage of its format is that it functions as a template that can be calibrated to any community with any level of detail desired. • Regional plans can be used or not. Architectural standards are optional. Modules can be added on as needed. • The alternate would be to bring in a consultant to draft aform-based code from scratch. Smart Growth Committee - 02.27.09 23 , 12 Smart Growth ~r~ Neighborhoods and Districts St. Lucie County 4 ( } ; 'ygxy v r ` ~ . ~ i^ xt~ z' TRIAS ASSOCIATES ~ a . i ~ • d ~ 4 ~1.., d t ' int. ~t 'r~ , ~ ~ ~y a~ppp , ^ M ` qF ~ ~ ~^r ~ DIY ~ , ~ . ~ i ~ F ``x~ 4 ~ ~ ~ X1` y1 ~ Lf.~M~ ~ n , w P~`.~ ~ ~ - ~ o ! u ~ : .,a cry , 1 ~ k i a s-, ,a,Yi ~y`" Y„ a'~` ~l•~ ~h r y H ` ' "3 x ~ ' _1YS ~ ±S3S ~ ~ ~ 'f ~ 1~., ~ - i_ i p a _ ~ ? _ I ~.rw. _ ~i~ C _ I'` orb .i_~ f~-.. t u A r'.. ~f ~ C D F I i~ ~~I~IiWI~I'I~~I'iPM~I~~ `aiilfm r!:` a 'f-r ~f r ee - 4 V II i61 ~I I :R ~ l ~r S~m~g1~ 1~a Ilyll~id~ I r ~i p C~4' ~ ~ ~ i W~ ~ ,4 a ~ i per _ -^a~ . ~~t~ - r ~ , ; - ~ -C"~n ~ ."t~'.°ti. r trr -r ' , - ~,,-a= ~ s .~f a m ~ R t ' a ~ ~ ~ r ,~~y,v ~ ~ ~ ~ t ' ' « a sir ~II '3 If' ~ .t ,~x,. _ qI. .g. x_ ~iupl4 !?1111 WF ~ ~ 4?' v do V it ry~ I I ~ : _ i ° o ~ ~.r rV hVi~M 1 ~ u ~ ~ .'fit ~ --fi~rr a, I t . 'i% G~Rit' ..1~. _ra_. i fi ~..~,CF i1111Y. T 1- . .a. ~ ~~.~T t~ ~ ~~MI I' 9.^.~r M. ~ ina Ko- .~i p Mq~-.,~ s,. .r.. ,mot Y k ~ p.. X: ~ P 4 ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ V ~ , - a ~ , ss , , v ~'f 1. i y L ~ gyp, ~ ._Yii.. ~ r ~ t i _ i ~ . 1 Y+ ~ I r. ~ 4 t S f 1 i ~ P~ ~s ,fir f I i a _ ~,1 `~0~"v, f ' / ~ (jlSr a~ s .t ~ St? I 4 t a~ ,~ti ~ _ _ ~ _ Ikk^w~ n n4 r~ - I~ ~ _ _ i'T _ .~,C_.~.,.Y~S A _ _~..>w y _ - ~ s~# ~ ~ ~ Hr ~ ~'!~a, v a, H µ ~.r" S'.. f , ~ Il ~pp~ { w - Y~ o I 4e ~ - i t~ s ~ Fl {!d ar } ~ I r~~,"~~ III I _:u - 4'isions of Fort Pierce ~ _ ~I~ti~.~ ~ f'l l'ii.i( l)?li~'iill)I' ~ ~ I ~ " ma .~"~,~°,.,.~~.w~m.~.~:";~.~... f ~Vcighborhoods and Districts' • pngnisr~l mnwldmelu ru rlu• ~,,,,~„~~-,,,,,,,a ,,,~w~~.,m,.wp~o~sye,.~,. .r City` of Fort Pierce .,.~_...,.,+~';~:~~;~~...,.~,.~,.~...~.,,e..~. Comprehensi~•e Plan w ~.<>eld=,~,~ ..Mn.. ~~.~,.~m.~..o...w~."..~;. - _ _ m+ _ ~e.uda...a.ro,.,,~w.,.we.. ublic is incited ab~w ."""A,",~ Tbe~ ,~md..~. , TJlculk con Jor cuur . aII,L', '.dlpns 1°n a..k,..m 9 4 STORY MIXED-USE INFILL BUILDING y ~ ' u~ ~LU -aJ=~ :.lu _ 8' p' I 1111. ` ( dri7nr~ tt t _ t i } ~ - t . ~ / c 1\_ 9 ! t.G ~ ~ ~ ~ i. / -1 ~ ~ Sh:'n M,. ~i _ a I Illy. c. ((ItIN'1 VAIt I) ~.T1~1. SIOEYMO ~'i - ..n _Y-S , ~ ~ , RIAS~~~~'ASSOCIATf.. II' 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ~ PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director Kara Wood, Planning Manager DATE: May 18, 2009 SUBJECT: Western Lands Planning May 26, 2009 BOCC Informal Meeting At the April 28, 2009 BOCC Informal Meeting, staff presented a draft outline for a Western Lands Planning Study. The outline included a proposed study area, framework and options for selecting a lead consultant. After reviewing this information, the Commission requested that staff elicit feedback from the public and return with this information in a follow-up discussion at the May informal meeting. Staff solicited public comment through 1. responding to a number of requests on April 29"' to receive a copy of the PowerPoint presentation given to the BOCC, 2. posting a "Western Lands Update" link on the Growth Management web page on April 30th with a summary of the study intent, a link to the PowerPoint presentation given to the BOCC on April 28"', and an email link to staff for any comments, 3. posting a link to same from the St. Lucie County main web page on May 5th, and 4. sending an email blast on May 4th to all addresses in our contacts list notifying them that the information was posted and staff was receiving comments through May 18tH To date, staff has received two comments in response, one from a citizen and one from FDOT. Both comments were forwarded to the Commissioners upon receipt with staff's response and are attached for your review. None of the feedback so far has requested any change to the proposed study framework or specific direction on the selection of a lead consultant. Staff requests BOCC direction on the proposed study framework and the method for choosing a lead consultant. The three options remain as follows: 1. Establish Interlocal Agreement with other public agency (i.e. TCRPC, FAU, UF, TCRC&D) • No competitive selection process required • County can provide input/approve technical team 2. Choose from private firm on continuing contract for planning (i.e. MSCW, Miller Legg) • No additional competitive selection process required • County can provide input/approve technical team 3. Utilize RFQ/RFP process • Competitive selection process 4-6 months minimum • Typically involves a team established by proposer ITEM N0.8 Kara Wood From: Kara Wood Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:25 PM To: 'Trammell, Herbert' Cc: Lee Ann Lowery; Anne Bowers; Charline Burgess; Barbara Felton; Eva O'Donnell; Terri Ann Palumbo; Liz Martin; Mark Satterlee Subject: RE: Western County Plan public input Mr. Trammell: Thank you for your input on this matter. Your comments pertain to one of the specific areas that staff has identified as needing attention in this study. While this may not be evident in the broad framework we have presented to the Board of County Commissioners so far, the management of stormwater is a critical issue to take into consideration as agricultural lands become further developed. As public input is especially valued during this process, your comments are being forwarded to County Administration and the Board of County Commissioners at their request. I am developing an email list of those wishing to be kept informed of progress on this study, and I will be happy to add your name so that you will receive email notification of any public meetings or new information. Please feel free to contact me at any time with further concerns or questions. We look forward to your continued input. Regards, Kara Wood Planning Manager St. Lucie County Growth Management 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 T: 772.462.1589 F: 772.462.1581 From: Trammell, Herbert [mailto:btramme@sfwmd.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:49 AM To: Kara Wood Subject: Western County Plan public input Ms. Wood, I appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the Western County Conceptual Plan. The large rural residential community that surrounds the Glades Cut Off and Carlton Road area is in dire need of stormwater management. The current infrastructure of roadside swales, culverts, and private property ditches has been developed "ad hoc" over the years and is overwhelmed during large storm events (e.g. tropical storm Fay in September 2008). Many yards flood right up to the house foundations and some houses become inundated. As development continues to push west, the very tenuous storm water situation in this area will only get worse and area residents will suffer more. An engineered stormwater management system that improves the current situation for these residents and accommodates planned future development is one of the first things that should be addressed in this study. I am a resident that has seen water completely surround my house several times during these rain events and know that any additional water flowing into our poor drainage system will put me (and others) underwater. 1 Please make this an important part of your plan. I'll be watching your website for addition opportunities for public input. Thank you, Bert Trammell 11510 Carlton Rd. 2 Kara Wood From: Kara Wood Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:13 AM To: 'Riddle, Andrew' Cc: Peter Buchwald Subject: RE: Western Lands Planning Study Attachments: image001.png Andrew: Thank you for your input on behalf of FDOT. Growth Management staff is certainly congizant of the importance of tranportation infrastructure considerations in conjunction with land use planning. We look forward to working with FDOT and the TPO, and coordinating with the LRTP process during the Western Lands Planning Study. Your comments will be forwarded to others involved in the decision-making process of this study and taken into account when framing the final scope of work. Regards, Kara Wood Planning Manager St. Lucie County Growth Management 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 T: 772.462.1589 F: 772.462.1581 From: Riddle, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Riddle@dot.state.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:20 AM To: Dawn Milone; Kara Wood Subject: RE: Western Lands Planning Study The Department would like to provide the following regarding the proposed Western Lands Planning Study: The Department is diligent about maintaining level of service (LOS) on SIS roadway corridors because they are integral to the movement of goods and people within regions and across the state. I-95, Florida's Turnpike and SR 70 are SIS corridors within St. Lucie County and the applicable statewide LOS standards under Chapter 14-94, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), are listed below. Revenue cuts have been moving out improvements planned for I-95. Segments of regionally significant roadways with improvements funded by the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) also are subject to a statewide LOS standard under Chapter 14-94, FAC. The segment of SR 713/Kings Highway from SR 70 at Florida's Turnpike to south of I-95 overpass (PD&E: FY 2011) falls under that requirement (LOS D). The proposed Western Lands Planning Study requires transportation planning expertise (slide 5) and the framework (slide 4) should evaluate transportation infrastructure. Any proposed comprehensive plan amendments resulting from the study must be supported by data and analysis addressing potential impacts on the transportation network based on maximum development potential. The St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is currently updating its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and is anticipated to be adopted in February 2011. One of the components of the LRTP is a future land use analysis. The Department recommends that this study be effectively coordinated with the TPO and the Department. SIS LOS Standards: - I-95: LOS D to Indrio Road and LOS C north of Indrio Road i - Florida's Turnpike: LOS C to SR 70 and LOS B from north of SR 70 - SR 70: LOS C in the urbanized and LOS B in the rural. (McCarty appears to be the dividing line.) Blue -Urbanized Red -Rural Green - Transitioning ~or~:Trsw~ar~unr..u F~~Ja~~.~ iV t-x~ ® ~`,'`rQ 3 s < r y T ~i`S. _ ~ L' ~r 3 4 4 yc t Y v it• ~ A s `L = FF - 1 v i .'fi ~ S CL:.2 ;S ~ ^A ANDREW RIDDLE, AICP OFFICE OF MODAL DEVELOPMENT FDOT -DISTRICT FOUR 3400 WEST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 TEL:954-777-4605 FAX: 954-677-7892 EMAIL: ANDREW. RIDDLEC~DOT.STATE.FL.US 2 Local Preference Ordinance 09-005 1 Board approves bid projects as local preference projects. Based on staff recommendation. 1 Bids • Competitive & Sealed • Opened in public at pre-determined time • Award is based solely on the lowest price 1 1 Outside TC non-local/non-reciprocity bidders Local bidders: SLC, Martin, IRC & Okeechobee Reciprocity bidders Lowest price bidder • Apparent lowest bidder within 5% of non-local lowest price bid Local preference kicks in • Must be in business for at least one year prior to the issuance of request • Must have a physical address (no P.O. Box). Must be staffed • Fully match price of non-local lowest price bid in writing within 5 days • Get the contract • Change order requests increasing cost must be approved by BOCC May 14, 2009 ITEM N0.9 Local Economic Stimulus Ordinance 09-008 Board approves stimulus projects by resolution and public hearing 1 Bids • Competitive & Sealed • Opened in public at pre-determined time • Award is based solely on the lowest price 1 All bidding contractors must agree to use minimum: • 759'0 local laborers having SLC residency as of 1/29/08 • 759'o focal suppliers having SLC business tax as of 1/29/08 Must have a physical address (no P.O. Box) within SLC. • 759'0 local subcontractors having SLC residency as of 1/29/08 Must have a physical address (no P.O. Box) within SLC. Non SLC Contractor submits i SLC Contractor submits lowest bid Non SLC Contractor and SLC lowest bid Contractor submit identical bids 1 1 Gets contract Preference kicks in Contractor with highest 1 percentage local laborers, subcontractors (suppliers) SLC Contractor within 59'0 of non-SLC contractor bid, with more than 759'0 laborers, suppliers & 1 subcontractors &SLC residency as of 1/29/08 Gets contract 1 Match bid 1 Gets contract May 14, 2009 rn o Z o ~ N W O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C O N to C _U N _N O O O L fl. d C ~ p. a a U ~ E E rn Q ~ o ° c°~ c°~ a~'i v~ o ~ ~ ~ c°~ c°~ a~°i a~i a~°i N V7 CO w O N 'O w N C O N N ~ LL C O ~ ~ ~ U N O .D .C ~ ~ N N (q ~ U~ U O O N E N L N O O O E E E C C ~ A N N O O O 'O N p~ C p 0) p 0 p 0) U U V > ~ > > to w. r f~ r r O ~ p ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O_ w~ ~ N N ~ ~ M ~ M ~ M r r r (II Q Q. U y O C O C O m N~ Q N O y 0 N CO ~ CEO ~ CO ~ C\O C r C r C O C N C N C N Qm ~~F~cOU~Uo ~v~~vU.oU~U~aoaoao w ~ O ~ O ~ C (n (n fn ~ (n ~ ~ (n fn (n (A U O O J V N N ~ C > L a ~ ~ d > > > > C~ O ~ Y J N o o ~n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O M O N O M O O O tC) O I~ C ~ N I~ O M ~ N O O O o0 O M N ~ M ~ CO COO O O ~ ~ r N ~ eN- N O r ~ ~ ~ O M69 ~ 64 fA 69 69 69 V 609 r V ~ C 0 Z O C C V ~ ~ ~ w U ~ C W U J w w ~ a o a ~ V U ~ o O U N O N O to C (q C - t L O C ~ U V d a ~ ~ O = C CA C C ~ U O ~ C +O• ~ 'C N ~ O w. N N a o ~ ~ -o a c ~ a0i ~ Q W ~ ~ C N N v O N N N N O U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N a!S d ~ ~ O tU N CC U ~ O N O O O C C C 3 O N ~ ~ U N O O N ~ (`p ~ a°i ~ rn !n (n ~ a U U ~ p ~ ~ in Q-' Q' C C d ~ C~ N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ O N C N 3 U U O ~ N N N N U U X N ~ ~ N ~ ~ I~ ~ Q Q ~ (A Q Q W ~ ~ ~ y cu N C ~ ~ Q H a ~ ~ c ~ Q o U N ~U 3 J w U J ~ ~ s r n to r c ~ C7 m' o O Z ~ ~ 3 ~ r ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m n~ _ c D v ari m 2 0 O = ~ a ~ c~ ~ m m m ~ Q ni ~ ~ 3 n ~ c o °o ~ v m ~ D m W v ~ n n ~ ? ~ W ~ n m n ~ ~ ~ ° o p~ cn ca n ~ v ~ N n N ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r: ~ obi ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ v v D o m 0 m ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ n ~ ~ m ~ c v~ m ~ v ~ ~ G = o' p ~ ~ C) ~ ~ can c`~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ m ° o ~ v ~ m ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ o' s n ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ m n j. ~ Z 4A N N N W ~ N ~ ~ W ~ W W ~ N O O O CT O (Jl N V7 O U7 CJ1 O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O C ~ N < < < t t t t t < < < O ~ Q TI C. ~ O ~ 3 t ~ ~ O N N O O ~ d ~ ~ C7 O O ~ ~ ~ cn m m m m m m m m m m o- n ~ o x x x x x x x x x x ~ o ~ m m m m m m cc cu m n a a a a a a a a a a. n N• m m in m c"c m Fu iu m m 3~ a~ n a a a a a a n n a o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ O O O O O O O O n O O CO CO CO CO CO CO Cfl CO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (gyp s ~ O O O O O O O O ~ N O cn N O N O i O tD w rn 0 0 N O N Y o c a~ m 3 .n m ~ a~ .o m ~ m ~ E o ~ ~ c v c ~ c ~ c ~ m ~ ~ a ° a ~ a ° ~ N v c E ° E c~ a~ w > .C c C C .C c N~ 'C V V L C U1 N m O m O m 0 ~ E N~ C N O w L ~ ~ O ~ N ~ N~ N~ O~ O U E~ Y N D p~ d 3 (0 N N a~ N~ N~ c m ° 3 3° 3 y .c o o ai a0o OoOo °+°-~=°-cN° ~c O Qa° n.°~° O._ ~cn~cn._ Q~co~~ a o c o~ U U U U U U U U U U t0 (n fn CA (n Cn (n J J J v C (A (n fn O O J U N N C V > O a d ~ C~ O ~ Y a ~ > > > > > > > > > > ~ ~ 'J ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ c~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~t N N ~ N f~ I~ ~ ~ O ~ O y O ~ 69 d4 69 NEi3 d4 ff3 EA EA NEf? E{} ~ V ~vj M U_ O O w J U O E ~c a~ o a~ +r ~ o ~ w o ~ ~ m $ c N c w ° 0 o N p` ~ 3 0 ~ ° N C Q V V F- C O N w N r Q p° cc`a c o m ~ ~ O~ ~ w. s o c ~ Z v w ~ aZi v°i 3 o m °o Q c U ~ a~i ~ aci E cC ~ N O ° ~ ° t L N > O U ~ O N ` _ ~ X ° c fn c ~ O -o O C7 W N ~ c X O C N (0 m ~ ° b ~ ° ~ O O O O ° N N U N N U z ~ _ ~ m a Q~¢ 0 5 U ~ 'C N ~ ~ ~ W ~ O U a~ •U 7 J U J • k r C7 r c ~ c~ ~ o n3 O v c Z ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ C 3 ~ ~ n Or ~ ~ cn ~ ~ O 3 Z o~i ~ ~ G7 D ~ ~ 00 00 W n=i D m Z ~ n~i m ~ C) m m o=~ a n a Q ~ co 2 ~ ~ cp > > > N C7 C7 C7 ~ W Q ~ ~ vi vi = m m m W N ~ ~ ~ o ~ n ~a ~ 0 0 0 ~ D °a ~ a _ ~ m v_ ~ C7 Z W~~? n+ fl: ~ fD S N N o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - m 2 m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ N ~ > > ~ O p y ~ ~ v ~a ~ ~ W N ~ r °c n°~ ~ m ~ m o n~ ~ ~ o r ° ~ ° m n ° ° O z ° O n ~ ~ N ~ CNTI ~ O CT1 +CD ~ W N O O N N b9 ,yr ~ v Cn 00 W O O N O O O O O U1 O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ C r c < < t t t t t o ~ 70 O ~ ~ t t t t ~ 3 .o < < t ~ t ~ ~ N H O O C7 C7 n n n n ~ o O ~ ~ ~ ~ -vO-vOv0-v0~ m m o o ~ O o~ o v o~ o~ o ~ ~ m~m~m~m?~ ~ coifJfJ 3 ~ m a~ o 0 0 0 o v co co o v a ° ~ co c co c cc c co c m d v 3 0 ~ ~ ~~~~~Q'-,gym ~ ~ ~n~i ~ a a a a ~ ~ m n. ~ 3 n n n n ~ ~ o n N ~ 7 O O fD 7 > > 7 O O O O ~ N O N O , O tD J rn 0 0 N O N _ ~ N N N O U O C_ N N ~ ~ ~ N O ~ m ~ ~ ~ • C O ~ J, Q Q CO C ~ C C ~ ~ C 7 O O ~ C ~ O O U O w ~ .r f0 w. V N N O O U ~ -p U to O ~ ~ a Q a ~ N ~ Q O O ~ ~ h N ~ ~ L C O C C f0 ~ C ~ a ~ C 4? O U Z U U O O T C O O f0 O N U C C a C ` a U V= 0 ~ c a N p Z N O N O U .C O oOUC~O > O O c N0 U N~ O~ C C O Q C > Lf') U ~ ~ N U ~ .C ~ .C ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ O V C O O J V N Vl C C > a ~ ~ > > > > > > C~ O ~ Y a > > > > ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 0 0 g ~ o 0 o O O O O O O o 0 0 N ~ ~ N N M O N O ~ ~ ,Na, O O (n V 6F} EA EA Eo9 EA N ~ M Op ~ 64 ~ nj to CV 69 to 64 bq L Z O .^O C U ~ W ~ ~ ~ U ~ -a ~ c ca N L V O U c cv ~ ~ ~ E m o, E O a~ ~ o c ~ o ~ ~ aai aNi ~ ~ ~ O Z ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ c Y a~ o cco ~ c ~ O c ~ o a ~ o > ~ ca Y aci U U ` ~ c ca ~ ~ ~ ~ -o ~ g L U U c O O t a? ~ O ~ O ~ L ~ ~ O C O f0 ~ a ~ a~ N m a ~ > a~ ~ ~ c U ~fD C ~ f0 'O ~ O N o ~ U cn ~ O C7 c~ c ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ Q ~ coo ~ m ~ ~ m > ~ a? ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ .o ~ m cn N w ~ c O d ~ Q Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ O ~ p c N U ~ ~ o c J 3 E ~ ~ w ~ ~ E ° a ~ U LL J ~ J 7 J ~ U ~ C ~ 7 ~ ~ N V ~ W ~ i ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ n. Y V V c J d ~ ~ O ~ d ~ U a a~ ~U 7 J w U J t r n fA r c n cu ~ o ~ v O n ~ n rD- O ~ m fn v c m ~ n a o ~ m ~ s m Q m ~ ~ ~ 3. 0 v O cn C7 ~ D r n O Z O 3 A w C7 ~ rn ~ o O N V O r+ C 0 0 ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ~ O t a ar? ~ .D t ~ 3 N N O O ^ ~ R l' ~ O O ~ 'F Of a m 0 N o' ~ 7 W N O N O O CO J rn 0 0 N O N C C ~ 7 ~ ~ = m m m ~ ~ LL LL LL r N N m m ~ ~ r N N N N ~ ~ 'C ~ 'C N N o N v v CY_ Q' ~ w w U U ~ O O N ~ U o o ~ c- ~ ~ E E E a o c c Z C C N U d ~ U V U Q c c c Z ~ c o o E E c c c o0 0 0 C] c ~ v ~ ~ •N •y •N ° fY c ~ c c ~ v ~ n rn ~ c c ~ c. m a`ni ~ ~ m W w d !A (n ~ O coo coD ~ ~ J ~ ' C c ~ o u ~ ~ r Q^ J V ~ U y a Z ~ ~ > > > > > > > > > > > cn ? ~ w a J o 0 0 0 ~n o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 o rn o 0 0 0 0 o w ~ J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o cri co o cri o 0 0 0 0 o m ~ U N ~ ~ ~ t° c i ~ o ~n ~n ~n o ~ ? V f,H 69 N ~ E/4 ~ EA ~ ~ 6~9 ~ N ~ V ~ ' ~ ~ ~ O U , z w U ~ ~ w a o Q ~ U O ~ ~ ~ N ~ C ~ c O. ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o U ~ V1 ~ ,c co Q ~ N U ~ p a J a ~ U ~ co voi 2 ~ > c~ .n ~ U a y U o r' ~ a~ ~ 3~ ~ a ~ s ~ a ~ N _E x ~ d E ~ •Y U U m o F= ~ ~ ~ °o ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ o N c y c b a ~ 3 ~ U ca a Q - cn :D o Y E a' ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ V ~ `o con -o ~ ~ ~ c o U ' o 'oj Q .c ~ m ~ co ~ o ~ ~ m ~ a~ ~ c ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o v) in U ~ g ~ > v ~ > ~ U aUi 4 Q Q W ii~> N N V N m m N ~ ~ ~ E J ~ ~ Q ~ e. ~ Y J O ~ ~ w na. ~ ~ v a ~ •U J ,Y^ VJ U J e (n RESURFACING OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY ? Annual Bid for County resurfacing contract to be advertised in June, 2009, budget for bid is $700,000. Estimated cost for Old Dixie Highway is $125,000, includes leveling, asphalt, and stripping. ? Other projects to be included in resurfacing are: ¦ Glades Cut Off Road from C-24 Canal Road to Rangeline Road Glades Cut Off Road from Budweiser Plant to Selvitz Road ¦ Immokolee Road from Kings Hwy to Seminole Rd ITEM No. 9 C:\Drawi~gs\MAY-21-2009\0921-RESURFACING-OLD-DIXIE-HGWY-USI-TO-A1A.dwg, 5/21/2009 6:55:02 PM, 1:400, SLCPWD-ED-D.S.Ard s . - ;STATF~ ROAD Al : ~ - ~n, - ^ 4 , , a.. ~ - < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ " a•' ~ r ~ ~ ;mil .sr ~ . r ti - T~ 3 . a y~[~j[ ' C'~~~- ~_tR~_~t~- ~+.T"" msg., - x ! iiy-~ ~ ~ s y_ +t ~ f 111 ae a~"' - • - r. mss- r - t=' ._4' . ~ - =rte tee.: 1~` - 'r ~--irk{ T ~ . ~ . ;.yid ° - t ~ ~ Y ~ i r ! ~ _ ~ s..gV _ r , OLD DIX_ iE HIGHWi4Y, ~,1 - U$1- TO A1`A- 3000' s , a .i : ` G - ~r a - f 4 3 e - - - s _ . ~ _ • ~c I S - r ~ ~iC.;.~. MHO, ~ 205 =s. ~ r.. ~ c BOARD OF COUNTY COl®iiISSIONERS E s v i s i o x s RESURFACING: OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA 'r O US 1 NORTH TO A1A POBLiC wO1QS DEPT., ENGD~G DIVISION, ~ 11!00 R~ ~Yi.. 70i>< P®!i. >IIA~? S~YIC raaeao>e s o s - i s o ~ 'rte ~ ~~~n~ sue- .st- ~c>^ ,f,..~.. ~-wm -;S 1 - ~ ~ MEMORANDUM • ~ ~ ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL SERVICES TO: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) THROUGH: Faye O , County Administrator FROM: Roger A. Shinn, Director~W~ Central Services Department DATE: May 20, 2009 SUBJECT: Renovation of Community Services Offices Background As discussed at the March 2008 Strategic Planning Session, Investment Forthe Future (IFF) funds in the amount of $900,000 were budgeted and allocated in FY 07-08 to provide approximately 10,000 square feet of office space for Community Services at the St. Lucie County Logistics Center. A portion of the $900,000 was allocated for Architectural Design ($115,965) for Community Services offices as well as Health Department offices and the proposed community health clinic, which will also be located at the Logistics Center. At the December 8, 2008, BOCC Budget Workshop, then County Administrator Douglas Anderson, recommended Community Services remain at their current offices on 7th Street with a corresponding reduction in the $900,000 allocated for renovations. At the March 17, 2009 Informal BOCC Meeting, staff submitted a cost estimate of $300,000 to renovate the current offices for Community Services. Community Services Office Space Document storage previously located at the Community Services facility has been transferred to the Logistics Center. The addition of this space (5300 sq. feet) to Community Services current space will provide the department 10,000 sq. feet of refurbished office space, equivalent to the space they were to be provided at the Logistics Center. With 35 spaces available at their current location, parking for Community Services is adequate. The renovation will provide a reception area/waiting room, offices for 19 staff, community meeting room, conference room, public and staff restrooms, kitchen/break room, file room, and storage room. The renovation will require building or installing walls, ceilings, floor covering, lighting and electrical upgrades, fire alarm system, plumbing, ADA improvements, and roofing sealant to extend the roof life. Approximately 70% of the work will be 1 ITEM N0.10 accomplished in-house. Given the age and condition of the facility, staff is recommending a minimum of 15% of the project cost be allocated for contingency. Estimated Costs: Fire alarm system $ 18,000 Walls, doors and locks $ 20,000 Floor coverings (10,000 sq. ft.) $ 50,000 Lighting and electrical upgrades $ 25,000 Ceilings $ 7,000 A/C improvements $ 40,000 Painting (interior) $ 6,000 Roofing sealant (11,000 sq. ft.) $ 12,000 ADA improvements $ 4,000 Plumbing $ 5,000 Furniture, fixtures, equipment $ 50,000 Phones and data 25 000 Sub Total $262,000 Project contingency (15% of est. costs) $ 39,300 Total $301,300 Staff is requesting to move forward with the renovation and to reallocate budgeted IFF funds in the amount of $300,000 for the renovation. Budget Imaact Should the Board approve the renovation of the Community Services offices on 7th Street, approximately $434,035 of the $900,000 funding will be available for other projects: Budget $900,000 Project Expenses Architect (Comm. Services, Health Dept., Free Clinic) $115,965 Community Services Renovation $300,000 Design/ permitting (Green Collar Training Center) 50 000 Remaining balance $434,035 Staff is requesting the remaining balance be set aside for renovation of the former Parks ~ Recreation offices in the Administration Building (Room 101) to a new media studio. The new studio would replace the one currently located at Morningside Library. In addition, funds will be needed to renovate the former Chamber of Commerce building which the County will be receiving from the City of Fort Pierce. Staff will provide more specific information to the Board on both these projects before moving forward with them. C: Lee Ann Lowery, Assistant County Administrator Beth Ryder, Director, Community Services Media Relations 2 ITEM NO. VI-F - DATE: 05/12/09 • • . AGENDA REQUEST REGULAR ( ) PUBLIC HEARING ( ) INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE LEG. ( ) QUASI-JD ( ) CONSENT (x ) TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ PRESENTED B Roger A. Shinn SUBMITTED BY: Central Services Director SUBJECT: Reallocation of funds. BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum. FUNDS AVAILABLE: 001-1931-546200-15019 (Community Services-Maintenance Projects) (pending BOCC approval) PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Board authorization to reallocate Investment For the Future funds in the amount of $300,000 for the renovation of Community Services offices. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: ( ) APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( ) OTHER Faye W. Outlaw, MPA County Administrator Coordination/Signatures County Attorney (x ) OMB Director (x ) Budget Analyst ~ h~ Dan McIntyre Marie Gouin Robert O'Sullivan Originating Dept. (x ) ~S''`~ ERD ( ) Roger A. Shinn ITEM N0. 10 - x ~ - Central Services k~ ~ • ' _ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Roger A. Shinn, Director~~' Central Services DATE: May 12, 2009 SUBJECT: Reallocation of funds. ITEM NO. VI-F Background: Investment For the Future (IFF) funds in the amount of $900,000 were budgeted and allocated in FY 07-08 for the St. Lucie County Logistic Center. A portion of these funds were to be used to construct office space for Community Services. Now that document storage has been relocated to the Logistics Center, space has become available within the Community Services facility and staff is requesting to reallocate the budgeted IFF funds in the amount of $300,000 for this renovation project. Recommendation: Board authorization to reallocate Investment For the Future funds in the amount of $300,000 for the renovation of Community Services offices. AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. ~l o.~•c~~ DATE: May 12, 2009 -~T 1 ~ Y' ~ tl', ® REGULAR [XX] ~ r PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre SUBJECT: Proposed Apprenticeship and Independent Contractor Language BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests further action from the Board. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: [ ]APPROVED [ ]DENIED [ ]OTHER: Faye W. Outlaw, MPA County Administrator Review and A,Pprovals County Attorney: Management ~ Budgei Purchasing: Davie 5. McIntyre County Administrator: Public Works Dir: County Eng.: Fad e ~ .Outlaw, MPA Finance: (Check for copy o , if.applicable} Eff. 5/95 ITEM N0.11 ~ r: ; m~~°""' y~ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel 5. McIntyre, County Attorney Faye W. Outlaw, MPA, County Administrator C.A. NO.: 09-0571 - DATE: May 6, 2009 SU83ECT: Proposed Apprenticeship and Independent Contractor Language BACKGROUND: On April 21, 2009, the Board directed staff to return on May 12~' with a recommendation regarding proposed language for the Purchasing Manual regarding the use of independent contractors and apprenticeship programs. Staft has concerns about both issues and would like further direction from the Board before making a recommendation for final language. DISCUSSION: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS: Staff does not recommend adopting any language which would limit a contractor s ability to hire independent contractors. Most local contractors are open shop contractors, as opposed to union contractors, and staff is concerned that such language would result in a restraint on trade, such that mar?y local contractors who are open shop would be effectively restricted from bidding on County projects. In addition, most contractors and sub-contractors maintain score offull-time employees and hire both laborers and skilled workers as they are awarded construction projects. These workers are often independent contractors and/or hired through temporary manpower agencies. " A requirement that a construction company use only employees would likely be cost-prohibitive for most corripanies, especially small ones. APPRENTICESN7P PROGRAMS: Staff has similar concerns regarding effectively restricting mast local contractors from bidding on County projects with respect to apprenticeship programs, as welt. Should the Board wish to implement apprenticeship programs for construction projects that are bid, utilization of F these programs must be mandated for all bidders. This is due to the fact that bid projects are awarded solely on the price submitted by responsive bidders. If mandated for all construction bid projects, the Board would need to determine the required percentage of apprentices. The required percentage for use of apprentices that hos been proposed by various individuals or groups ranges from 5% to 25%. Additional considerations for mandating apprenticeship programs in construction bid projects would be setting a threshold so that smaller projects would not be included. Staff recommends that projects under $1,000,000 not be included. In addition, staff recommends requiring that the apprenticeship programs be registered with the Florida Department of Education, have offices in the Treasure Coast and 75% of the apprentices be local laborers as defined in our Local Economic Stimulus ordinance. In addition, the language of the Purchasing Manual should allow the Board discretion on aproject-by-project basis to determine whether a requirement to utilize an Apprenticeship Program would be appropriate. In lieu of mandating all construction bid projects include the use of apprenticeship programs, the Board could consider two options: 1. Implement a Pilot Program with an apprenticeship requirement. Two projec#s which might be considered are the eligible housing rehabilitation programs in Community Services and.the Intermodal Transit Facility. Such a Pilot Program would give the Board the opportunity to see if #his type of requirement lends to increased costs or Inck of bids from local contractors. 2. Implemen# the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) On the Job Training Program for road projects valued at more than $1,000,000. This amount is bused on the bOTs own program threshold. Since this program is utilized by FDOT, staff is comforfiable that local contractors would be familiar with the requirements of this progrom. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION Staff requests further direction from the Board. Respectfully submitted, Daniel S. McIntyre Faye W. Outlaw, MPA County Attorney County Administrator DSM/caf ITEM NO. VI- ~ ~ - - DATE: 5/26/09 • • ~ - AGENDA REQUEST REGULAR ( ) PUBLIC HEARING ( ) LEG. ( ) QUASI~ID ( ) CONSENT (X ) TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Corine C. William SUBMITTED BY: Community Services/Transit Transit Manager SUBJECT: Short List of Architectural Service firms for Intermodal Transfer Facility, RFQ 09-038 BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum. FUNDS AVAILABLE: 130204-4910-334493-400 Florida Department of Transportation 130204-4910-337910-400 Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency 130204-4910-599330-400 Municipal Service Taxing Unit PREVIOUS ACTION: December 16, 2008 -Board approved Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for architectural services to develop and produce construction design for the Intermodal Transfer Facility. RECOMMENDATION: Board approval of the short-listed firms for architectural services for the Intermodal Transfer Facility and authorization to: 1. Conduct oral presentations with the short-listed firms; 2. Conduct contract negotiations with the successful short-listed firm; and 3. If negotiations are successful, award contract to the short-listed firm and authorization for the Chair to sign the documents as prepared by the County Attomey. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: ( ) APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( ) OTHER Faye W. Outlaw, MPA County Administrator Coordination/Signatures County (X) OMD Director (X ) Attomey 71 s~ Budget Analyst Da McIntyre Marie Gouin i-(~,..iy~,. ~ ~-y Sophia Holt Originating (X) ~ ~ Purchasing (X) Dept. JG~ r~~ ~ ~ ~ Beth Ryder Desiree Cimino Community Services - ~ • ~ ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Beth Ryder, Community Services Director FROM: Corine Williams, Transit Manager Community Services/Transit DATE: 05/26/09 SUBJECT: Short List of Architectural Service Firms for Intermodal Transfer Facility, RFQ 09-038 ITEM NO. VI- L3 Background: The Board has approved and accepted both initial and supplemental Joint Participation Agreements from the Florida Department of Transportation in the amount of $750,000.00 for the Avenue D & 8~' Street Intermodal Transfer Station. This Agreement was matched with local funds from the St. Lucie County Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency. To date, funding has been utilized for the acquisition of properties, and a conceptual design contest which was conducted through University of South Florida -Architect School. This contest produced design concepts created by graduate students. On December 16, 2008, the BOCC approved the Request for Quaycations (RFQ) for architectural services to create construction drawings for the building of apedestrian-friendly transfer facility with ADA compliant restrooms, bicycle racks, signage, kiosk with ticket and route information, a small park and ride area and a connection to the Moore's Creek Pathway and Greenway. On May 15, 2009, the selection committee evaluated and ranked the proposals. The committee members' scores and rank for each firm are provided in Attachment A. The short-listed firms in order of ranking are as follows: 1. Edlund, Dritenbas, Binkley Architects -Vero Beach, Florida (HQ) 2. Jack H. Scott Architect, Inc. -Fort Pierce, Florida (HQ) 3. Miller Legg -Port St. Lucie, Florida (Branch) 4. TRC Worldwide Engineering, Inc.- Fort Pierce, Florida (Branch) 5. Powell Design Group, Inc. - Fort Pierce, Florida (Branch) 6. Treasure Coast Building Engineers, Inc. - Fort Pierce, Florida (HQ) Recommendation Board approval of the short-listed firms for architectural services for the Intermodal Transfer Facility and authorization to: 1. Conduct oral presentations with the short-listed firms; 2. Conduct contract negotiations with the successful short-listed firm; and 3. If negotiations are successful, award contract to the short-listed firm and authorization for the Chair to sign the documents as prepared by the County Attorney. Memorandum 09-216 Attachment A Past Performance Total Firm Location References Qualifications Score Rankin Total possible points per Committee Member (Four members 0-20 0~5 0-25 Edlund, Dritenbas, Binkley Architects 36 295 139 470 1 Jack H. Scott Architect 120 205 138 463 2 Miller Legg 60 265 130 455 3 TRC Worldwide Engineering Inc. 60 253 126 439 4 Powell Design Group Inc. 60 255 121 436 5 Treasure Coast Building Engineers, Inc 120 184 130 434 6